Tarfa was arraigned on March 9, before Justice A. A. Akintoye on a 27-count charge, including, making false statements, offering gratification to a public officer and failure to declare his assets in the Assets Declaration Form.
He is also facing a two-count charge of obstructing officers of law from carrying out their official duties and attempting to pervert the course of justice, filed against him by the EFCC, but before Justice Aishat Opesanwo.
At the resumed hearing, EFCC counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, told the court that the commission had enough evidence including a video recording of Tarfa’s allegedly incriminating conduct at the EFCC office.
“We have electronic evidence of the defendant’s conduct. We are keeping our gunpowder dry while waiting for the trial to begin,” Oyedepo said.
Oyedepo cited a plethora of authorities to back his submissions and said Section 27 of the EFCC Act empowered the commission to investigate and prosecute the defendant for the alleged offences.
He added that the action of the anti-graft agency was not in any way a contravention of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
On the issue of declaration of assets, Oyedepo argued that Tarfa was investigated for offering gratification to a public officer, “therefore the Act imposed a duty on him to declare his assets”.
Tarfa, who was represented by several lawyers including four had earlier argued, through Idigbe, that the EFCC could not be a complainant, investigator, as well as a prosecutor in the case.
Idigbe said: “We submit that this is contrary to natural justice, equity and good conscience. This is also in breach of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which requires that every citizen should have fair hearing, in order to guarantee the independence and impartially in every proceeding.
“The procedure that such charge should get the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP)’s advice was not followed.”
Idigbe also stated that Sections 172 and 209 makes a provision for compulsory declaration of assets by public officials, but that Tarfa “is not a public official. The charge respecting that cannot be sustained.”
On his client’s refusal declare his assets Idigbe stated that was the state’s duty to prove its case and that Tarfa had no obligation to provide any fact to an investigator.
“Any law which compulsorily asks a suspect to declare his assets must conflict with his right to remain silent,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment