₦airaland Forum

The embattled former leader of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has started singing like a Canary in his detention cell. Okah who is currently being detained in a South African prison over his alleged role in the October 1, 2010 bombing made some allegations in an affidavit he submitted to a court on Wednesday. The affidavit was filed in his fresh application for bail.

The President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan and a number of his aides were prominently mentioned in the 145-paragraph affidavit. For instance, Okah alleged that he spoke to the President on behalf of Mrs. Diezani Alison Madueke before she was made the Minister of Petroleum Resources. Okah also alleged that his present predicament cannot be divorced from his refusal to get MEND to retract their claim of responsibility for the Independence Day bombing. Okah claimed the Government wanted to pin the occurrence on some specific northern elements. Excerpts:

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: A570/10 In the matter between: –
OKAH, HENRY EMOMOTIMI Applicant
And THE STATE Respondent FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersiqned,
HENRY EMOMOTIMI OKAH do hereby make oath and state as follows: –
1. I am an adult male person, the Applicant herein, currently incarcerated at the Johannesburg Prison, since my arrest on the 2nd of October 2010.

2. The content of this affidavit falls within my own personal knowledge, except
where it is expressly stated otherwise, and are both true and correct”,

3. I am charged with certain offences in terms of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, Act 33 of 2004 (lithe Terrorist Act”). I have further been advised and reconfirm that the offences referred to in the Terrorist Act are referred to in Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 and that I am obliged as such to adduce evidence, having been afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so, that exceptional circumstances exist which in the interest of justice permit my release on bail.

INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY

4. I was arrested on the 2nd of October 2010 and appeared in Court 12 in the Regional Court, Johannesburg for the first time on the 4th of October 2010.

5. I applied for and was denied bail in a judgment by the learned Regional Court Magistrate H Louw on the 19thof November 2010.

6. ·1 appealed the judgment of the learned Regional Court Magistrate to the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg under appeal case number CA340/2010. My appeal was heard by His Lordship Hattingh AJ and dismissed on the in January 2011. A copy of the judgment of the High Court is annexed hereto as Annexure “HEO 1″.

7. An application was made on my behalf for leave to appeal, to the Supreme·
Court of Appeal of South Africa, which application was dismissed by the learned Hattingh AJ on the 11th of June 2011. I attach hereto a copy of the order dated the 1ih of June 2011 as Annexure “HEO 2″.

8. The proceedings of the hearing of the application for bail, in the Regional Court Johannesburg, as well as the transcripts of the record of the appeal before Hattingh AJ, will be made available to the above Honourable Court at the hearing of this application.

9. I have further been advised by my legal representatives that since appeared in the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg on the 31st of January 2012, the abovementioned Court is therefore seized with this application by virtue of the provisions of Section 60(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 and that the above Honourable Court should hear this application.

NEW FACTS

10. I have been advised by my legal representatives that should new facts arise, subsequent to the historical application and appeal referred to hereinabove, I am entitled to apply to the above Honourable Court to take any and all of the new facts into consideration together with the original application and consider whether I should be released on bail.

11. The trial is set down to commence in the South Gauteng High Court on 1 October 2012 and I am advised that the trial is projected both by the State and by my legal representatives on a conservative estimate to last at least 18 months.

12. I have been furnished with an indictment dated 23 August 2011 under the hand of Advocate AR Ackermann SC, confirming that the trial will be conducted in the South Gauteng High Court.

13. In anticipation of the upcoming trial, I have been furnished with the content of the police docket containing the statements and evidence procured by the investigating officer.

14. The information contained in the police docket was not made available to me or my previous legal representatives before the previous bail application and the bail appeal.

15. As I will demonstrate hereinunder, my allegation set out in my previous affidavits in support of my bail application before the learned Regional Court Magistrate wherein I dealt extensively with the weakness and defects in the State case is now apparent when a proper and detailed analysis and comparison is made and drawn between the averments made under oath by the· investigating officer during the previous bail application and the evidence, or the lack thereof, which is contained in the police docket.

16. My legal representative in the bail application presented oral argument to the learned Regional Court Magistrate and favoured him with heads of argument in support of his submissions that I should be released on bail. Thereafter, during the address by counsel for the State, the learned Regional Court Magistrate indicated to counsel on behalf of the State that there was no evidential material placed before the Court, directly linking me with the crimes allegedly committed in Nigeria, which were set out in the charge sheet. In this regard I beg leave to refer the Court to pp 301 to 303 of the record. I deem it prudent to quote some exchanges between the Court and counsel for the State at p 302:-

COURT: That is not evidence.
PROSECUTOR: I also have evidence that the accused had … (intervenes).
COURT: I am going to interrupt you there. There is no evidential material before the
Court. You cannot say mero motu that you have evidence. You cannot testify, that is not evidence before this Court, and I will not accept it as such. It is a mere statement from yourself If you have evidential material by means of a statement under oath, or evidence that was presented somehow, maybe an answer from the accused …(intervenes)
PROSECUTOR: Yes.
COURT: Presented to me, but you are arguing that a mere statement from the State’s
side is somehow elevated to evidence, that is not, it is certainly not. .. But if you are not going to give me evidential material that links the accused with the planting of this, I must accept his version, despite the fact that my impressions upon him in the witness box, which you can allude to … (intervenes)
PROSECUTOR: Test.
COURT: That is my opinion at this stage.”

17. As a result of the aforegoing, the State’s legal representative requested that the matter stand down and thereafter applied to re-open the State’s case. (at pp 306 to 307). My legal representative opposed the application, but the Court ruled that the State be given an opportunity to re-open its case (record, pp 308 to 309).

18. The State then presented exhibit UN”, a further affidavit by the investigating officer, Lieutenant Colonel Zeeman, which affidavit was read into the record at pp 311 to 316 (exhibit UN”, pp 954 to 958).

19. In response to exhibit UN”, I filed an affidavit in terms of Section 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Act, seeking certain information to be furnished to me to be able to adequately deal with exhibit UN”. In this regard I refer the Honourable Court to exhibit “P” (pp 959 to 966).

20. The learned Magistrate thereafter ordered the South African Police Service to make a mirror copy image of the hard drive of the computer seized from my residence and all cellular phone hard drives as well as memories and the affidavits underlying the application for the warrant of my arrest, the search and seizure order issued by the Magistrate, be disclosed. I refer to the Court Order at pp 359 to 360 of the record.
21. Despite the aforegoing, the State failed to comply with the aforesaid Court Order. My legal representative then furnished the Court with a second replying affidavit of myself in response to the State’s failure to have complied with the Court Order (see record, pp 364 to 388, exhibit “Q”, my second replying affidavit, pp 967 to 993). The learned Magistrate thereupon held an enquiry as to why the State failed to comply with his Order and heard the evidence of three witnesses, Zeeman, Mofamadi and Makusa (record pp 394 to 412).

22. The learned Magistrate then made a ruling finding that there was an unreasonable delay caused by the State and ordered the State that the relevant copies as ordered by him, be presented to my legal team. I refer to pp 422 to 423.

23. By virtue of the fact that I was at that stage detained for over a month, my legal adviser advised me to proceed with my bail application and presented argument that I be released on bail (see record, p 423, lines 10 to 16).

24. From a perusal of exhibit “N”, as well as the judgment of the learned Magistrate and the judgment of the High Court in dismissing my appeal, both Courts relied heavily on the contents of exhibit “N”. I have been advised that it is prudent to annex exhibit “N” hereto since it played a pivotal role in both Courts denying me bail. I attach exhibit “N” hereto as Annexure “HEO 3″.

25. I have now been furnished with a copy of the police docket which I have been advised by my legal representatives contains all the evidential material which the State intends to use in my trial. I have studied the police docket and state categorically that exhibit “N” is false and misleading with regard to various issues contained therein.

26. The State alleged in Exhibit ‘N’ that prior to the detonation of the two motor vehicles improvised explosive devices in Abuja, Nigeria on 1 October 2010, two vehicles namely a Honda and a Mazda 626 were purchased in Lagos, Nigeria, on the instruction of a person complicit in the crime.

27. The explosions took place under the supervision of one Chima Orlu a Nigerian national. It is alleged that Chima Orlu acted on my instructions. The State has not furnished any evidence to substantiate this allegation in the police docket.

28. It was further alleged by the State that Chima Orlu’s telephone records revealed that he had been in contact with me on numerous occasions leading up to 1 October 2010. The telephone records contained in the police docket do not in any way substantiate these allegations made by the State in exhibit “N”.

29. The State also alleged that Chima Orlu sent an SMS message to me at precisely 10h58:59 on 1 October 2010. The SMS was allegedly followed by another SMS from Chima Orlu at 13h13:01 and again at 13h29:59 the same day. It is suggested that the replying SMS’s were sent by me to Chima Orlu at the times given. The police docket does not contain evidence substantiating these allegations made by the State.

30. The State also alleged that on 1 October 2010 Chima Orlu made a total of
43 voice calls and had sent 27 SMS messages to co-perpetrators and co-conspirators.
The police docket does not contain any evidence substantiating these allegations made by the State.
31. The State further alleged that Ben Ebere, a Nigerian national who is also known as Ben Jessy or Justin Malcolm Umejesi assisted Chima Orlu in the detonation of the said explosions. Ebere had allegedly been in telephonic and SMS contact with me right up to 29 September 2010. The police docket does not contain evidence substantiating these allegations made by the State.

32. There were allegedly 1 126 calls from me to Ben Ebere during the period 7 August 2010 to 29 September 2010. The telephone records contained in the police docket do not in any way substantiate these allegations made by the State.
33. There were allegedly 59 SMS’s sent from me to Ben Ebere during the period 1 July 2010 to 28 September 2010. The telephone records contained in the police docket does not in any way substantiate these allegations made by the State.

34. Ben Ebere is a wanted person in Nigeria. I attach hereto a newspaper article as Annexure “HEO 4″.

35. Exhibit UN” stated that Ben Jessy was in Nigeria during the time of the bombing. There is no evidence contained in the police docket to substantiate these allegations.

36. A copy of a photo, the original of which will be made available by my legal
representatives at the hearing hereof, of Ben Jessy and President Jacob Zuma is attached hereto as Annexure “HEO 5″.
37. An e-mail was also allegedly forwarded to me on 1 October 2010 at 16:25 by two people arrested in Nigeria relating to the bombing which stated:- “Done, tell them to leave now.”

38. The police docket does not contain evidence substantiating these allegations made by the State.

39. I propose to deal with the allegations surrounding Chima Orlu in more detail hereunder.

40. The allegations contained above in respect of the alleged cell phone calls and SMS messages between me and Chima Orlu are not substantiated by my cell phone records contained in the police docket.

41. The e-mail from the perpetrators of the bombing of 1 October 2010 purported by the State to be in its possession, simply does not exist in the police docket, nor does it exist on the computers or cell phones seized in the search of my residence.
42. As stated hereinbefore, the learned Magistrate ordered that the State gave me access to a disc containing the relevant cellphone records pertaining to the cellphones allegedly confiscated during the search and seizure of my residence. The relevant disc contains only two records of cellphones that belong to my wife and/or children. I respectfully state that no incriminating evidence was retrieved from these records. I attach the said report pertaining thereto as “HEO _”.

43. I refer to Annexure “HEO 4″ above, the newspaper article which appeared in a Nigerian newspaper and in which the public relations official of the Nigerian Police Force is quoted as having made available photographs of the two suspected masterminds behind the bomb blasts. It is significant to note that no information regarding these individuals is provided other than their names and their photographs.

44. In Annexure “HEO 4″ Ben Jessy is depicted on the photograph on the right hand side and Chima Orlu on the left hand side.

45. I can now categorically state that the allegations contained in exhibit “N” in
particular are not substantiated by any independent evidence. I therefore respectfully state that the so-called evidential material relied on by the learned Regional Court Magistrate and the High Court does not exist. I therefore respectfully state that the State’s case against me is extremely weak and it is unlikely that the State will be successful in a criminal prosecution against me. I respectfully state that had the Regional Court and the High Court been appraised of the true facts pertaining to the so-called “evidence” referred to in exhibit “N”, both Courts in all probability would have granted me bail.

Continue reading: http://newsrescue.com/jonathan-begged-blame-north-october-1-blasts-henry-okah-claims/#axzz3NfoFjxT7

Source or....

Na so,stop trying to bad belle jonathan...him go still sit there cone 2015. dis is naija

mexzy14:
Na so,stop trying to bad belle jonathan...him go still sit there cone 2015. dis is naija

Even if he's really guilty? Why don't you just open your mind more... .

Hmmmm.....maybe 2015 is really gonna be interesting

Jonathan has a lot of questions to answer. APC could use this against PDP.

You know Nigerians have a short memory. After MEND claimed responsibility, Jonathan immediately came out to defend them, that MEND cannot do such a thing. People have forgotten how everybody were upset with Jonathan and wondering how he became MEND spokesman.

Let's see how this one unfolds...

Trash. Op you need...........(d)............) to be schooled on the technicalities of political propaganda. When you juxtapose Jonathan and buhari personality AND the "bombing variables" whose image seem to be affected or tarnished?

hahahaha very funny.

JudismphD:
Trash. Op you need to be schooled on the technicalities of political propaganda. When you juxtapose Jonathan and buhari personality AND the "bombing variables" whose imahe seem to tarnished?

Oga... Spare me out Pls.. ..am I newsrescue?

We have always known that one way or the other, PDP is the brain behind Boko Haram

same same ciw dunk

Chylo:
You know Nigerians have a short memory. After MEND claimed responsibility, Jonathan immediately came out to defend them, that MEND cannot do such a thing. People have forgotten how everybody were upset with Jonathan and wondering how he became MEND spokesman.

hmmm

Some things are coming up

APC is desperate ,bringing out old news!