kulutempa:

IT Bomb thanks for your question. I really have to say that your question has made it even clearer that the Judge was compromised. An inference is defined as a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial. It is the same as saying that there is no smoke without fire. Basically it means a fact which is proved by presenting other facts, which then leads to only one reasonable conclusion. For example if A is in charge of a bank account, and makes a payment into B's bank account and the same payment is then made to C's bank account there is an inference that the payment must have originated from A's bank account and he cannot therefore deny that he was the source of the payment to C because he did not pay him directly. Where the Judge put his foot into his mouth is that establishing a prima facie case against a Defendant is more often than not all about drawing inferences on the available evidence which lead to the conclusion that the Defendant has a case to answer. It is after such inferences are drawn and a prima facie case established that the case then goes to trial and the issue of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt arises. As far as I am aware, there is no need to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt at the prima facie stage. The judge should go back to Law School.

Make some sense , is this the basis of throwing out charges for lack of merit,

kulutempa:

IT Bomb thanks for your question. I really have to say that your question has made it even clearer that the Judge was compromised. An inference is defined as a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial. It is the same as saying that there is no smoke without fire. Basically it means a fact which is proved by presenting other facts, which then leads to only one reasonable conclusion. For example if A is in charge of a bank account, and makes a payment into B's bank account and the same payment is then made to C's bank account there is an inference that the payment must have originated from A's bank account and he cannot therefore deny that he was the source of the payment to C because he did not pay him directly. Where the Judge put his foot into his mouth is that establishing a prima facie case against a Defendant is more often than not all about drawing inferences on the available evidence which lead to the conclusion that the Defendant has a case to answer. It is after such inferences are drawn and a prima facie case established that the case then goes to trial and the issue of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt arises. As far as I am aware, there is no need to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt at the prima facie stage. The judge should go back to Law School.

Nice expose. But you lost me the last ( bolded part). whose duty is to establish a prima facie case, the judge or the prosecution?

He disgraces the Nigerian judicial system. He's a stinky stigma indeed!

This man deserve to be shot death,our time against corruption will come.imagine him still a judge in a political suit.condemning british judiciary

You should have done change of name by now.To say you are stiil allowed to preside over cases? course it can only happen in a lawless country like Nig.

YOUR CONSCIENCE IS NOT CLEAR AND YOU WILL PERISH

kulutempa:
The judge should go back to Law School.

Come'on man, do you think he doesn't know the law?
I read the ruling and arrived at the same conclusion above, but chillax, it is not about law; it is about CORRUPTION.

The judge is a disgrace to the judiciary and the nation.

ITbomb:
Make some sense , is this the basis of throwing out charges for lack of merit,

No, not at all. On that basis the charges should not have been thrown out at all by Justice Awokulehin, because the Prosecution did not have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and could rely on inferences, such as unusual financial transactions involving transfers from the Delta state bank account to Ibori's account and those of his associates such as his mistress, Udoamaka into whose bank account over N190 million was paid. The Judge said that the payments were not evidence of moneylaundering because she is a contractor for Delta State who had executed many 'contracts' for the State. Strangely enough the Judge did not consider that Ibori's mistress who is the second Defendant in the case, has a case to answer as to exactly what those contracts were for!

[size=14pt]Justice Idowu, you did what you had to do. You would forever be vindicated. When someone a justice in Lagos named a murderer guilt, Asari and co called him a tribalist.

If you had convicted Ibori, Ideiots like Beaf and his Igbo cohorts would call you a tribalist that arrested Ibori but could not arrest Tinubu etc.

It is better to play safe and allow the world to see their stu,pidity.[/size] God bless you sir

juman: The judge is a disgrace to the judiciary.

How ?

muyoto:

Nice expose. But you lost me the last ( bolded part). whose duty is to establish a prima facie case, the judge or the prosecution?

The Prosecution. Once their submissions are accepted by the Judge, the case then goes to a full trial.

He has a clear conscience because he sees everything wrong with convicting a criminal like Ibori. Besides he must have received very handsome reward from Ibori; it is the order of the day in Nigeria. He will convict petty criminals and discharge and acquit dangerous criminals who cannot play ball. What a pathetic situation.

The judge lacks shame. In developed nations he should have apologized to the people and retired voluntarily. He sold his conscience for money. He should pray because the loot may cause confusion in his family when he is no more. The time to repent is now, old folk.

Our nation's judiciary is a disgrace. It is one whose allegiances belongs to the highest bidder.

Person wey no sabi spell conscience de talk of owning one dis judge na fool! make I no see ur pikin for AJ o!

succinctly, the judge committed faux pas. he compromised his integrity. of course it's only a fool that would have thought the judge would admit he erred. Last I checked inference was still not sentiment but reasoning in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation. As a layman in legal matters I thought inferences were basis for which judgement are delivered? If it is unarguably base on authenticating an allegations then criminals will alwaz go scot free. Either we reform our legal system or we start importing judges from abroad to save us

The most unfortunate aspect of the matter is that the man has shown without doubt that it wasn't even the prosecution that arranged to bungle the case; rather it was he himself.
It is really terrible! Delta state citizens and elders wrote enough petitions and expended monstrous amounts of energy to get Ibori before a judge, yet just one man overturned justice for millions.

There must be some sort of punishment or severe sanction for disgraceful connivers in crime like Awokulehin.

The judge is a a legal failure, I don't blame him, if it were in the U.S., he would have received pressure to step down, as well as, appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and explain his decision and opinion. Justice Dept would have been swarming all around him with ethics investigation and indictment, FBI would have launched undercover ops to see if he was compromised.

Assuming the silly judge had a conscience in the first place.

May the good Lord judge him and may we see a glimpse of his judgement on earth, silly old man.

wonders! What exactly does 'beyond reasonable doubt' mean? Myt be a layman in law but seriously if it is the inference thing that will give us true justice in Nigeria, then we shld adopt it. No wonder our leaders can boldly steal and walk free on the street.

It is really saddening reading things like this about naija; a judge frees a man, and weeks later another judge finds same man guilty of SAME CRIME, and the ''compromised'' judge boldly comes out to say his conscience ''is clear''. I mean, its not even his concern whether or not the convicting court had more evidence (than he did) to convict the man. As far as he's concerned, the guilty fella was ''innocent'', and thats that! Shame.

I actually don't think the judge should be blamed. The EFCC people should be blamed because they were not able to handle the case properly. No way the judge would have set him free if there was substantial evidence against him.

I will reiterate:

Nigeria's problems is the Old generation of citizens. A majority of them are just very corrupt and are bigots How can a matured/sensible man use these statements as an argument He should be probed!

nwanna89: I actually don't think the judge should be blamed. The EFCC people should be blamed because they were not able to handle the case properly. No way the judge would have set him free if there was substantial evidence against him.

What evidence did the court in England use what do you mean by EFCC's fault? na juju Oyibo use catch Ibori? Mtcheew

kulutempa:

IT Bomb thanks for your question. I really have to say that your question has made it even clearer that the Judge was compromised. An inference is defined as a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial. It is the same as saying that there is no smoke without fire. Basically it means a fact which is proved by presenting other facts, which then leads to only one reasonable conclusion. For example if A is in charge of a bank account, and makes a payment into B's bank account and the same payment is then made to C's bank account there is an inference that the payment must have originated from A's bank account and he cannot therefore deny that he was the source of the payment to C because he did not pay him directly. Where the Judge put his foot into his mouth is that establishing a prima facie case against a Defendant is more often than not all about drawing inferences on the available evidence which lead to the conclusion that the Defendant has a case to answer. It is after such inferences are drawn and a prima facie case established that the case then goes to trial and the issue of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt arises. As far as I am aware, there is no need to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt at the prima facie stage. The judge should go back to Law School.

I couldnt have said it better.

ekwah:

What evidence did the court in England use what do you mean by EFCC's fault? na juju Oyibo use catch Ibori? Mtcheew

There was always evidence. But the EFCC was bribed as usual, and they didn't produce this evidence. They only brought him to the court to fulfill all righteousness. However, in England they had the evidence of the houses, cars, and other things he bought in the UK using Delta State money.

alj harem: [size=14pt]Justice Idowu, you did what you had to do. You would forever be vindicated. When someone a justice in Lagos named a murderer guilt, Asari and co called him a tribalist.

If you had convicted Ibori, Ideiots like Beaf and his Igbo cohorts would call you a tribalist that arrested Ibori but could not arrest Tinubu etc.

It is better to play safe and allow the world to see their stu,pidity.[/size] God bless you sir

Are you okay? You need psychiatric help, Ewu hausa.
(Ur BB no get spell check? Abi u just enrolled in the Al-majiri ultra-modern school of Boko-Harram Trainees)

quote author=9jadelta]

haaa 5 is too much.. Just 3 and d nation will be on fire.. Buh 5 the nation will sink[/quote]

But Nigeria is survivin wiv 00s of his kind nt only in d judiciary but also in d executive n d legislature.
We really do nid divine help.

As 4 d judge, a lot has bin said already.hope he reads n bows his bald head in shame.
#dnt knw if he has bald head o bt I guess he does.they usually do#

What is Justice Awokulehin supposed to say, that his conscience is not clear? If he has any conscience, which I doubt, he will carry the shame he has brought on our nation's judicial system on his conscience. I will be surprised if he has not been relieved of his duty.