Ex-Vice President Namadi Sambo and the erstwhile State Security Service (SSS) Director-General under former President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, were aware of Senator Ali Ndume’s interactions with a Boko Haram member, Ali Konduga, the senator’s counsel claimed yesterday.
The counsel to suspended senator (APC, Borno State), Ricky Tarfa (SAN), said his client’s link with Konduga, who has since been convicted on terrorism related charges, was at the behest of the presidential committee set up under the Jonathan government to help address security challenges in the Northeast.
Ndume, who was former Senate Leader, made the claim in a no-case submission in his trial before a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The senator was arraigned on December 12, 2011, on a four-count terrorism charges.
He was accused of, among other counts, sponsoring the Boko Haram sect, maintaining a link with the sect member and failing to disclose the phone number of Konduga, which was alleged to be in his (Ndume’s) possession.
The prosecution commenced trial on July 3, 2012 and closed its case on June 22, 2016, after calling nine witnesses, following which Ndume opted for a no-case submission.
Adopting Ndume’s no-case submission yesterday, his lawyer, Rickey Tarfa (SAN), urged the court to discharge and acquit his client on the ground that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.
Tarfa said the prosecution failed to give sufficient evidence linking his client with the alleged offences.
He said Ndume’s contact with Boko Haram came about when the senator was a member of the Presidential Committee on Security Matters in the Northeast.
Tarfa said: “We have taken the counts from one to four and have analysed them. Clearly, there is nothing in the evidence led by the prosecution that will necessitate the defendant to be called upon to enter his defence in the charge.
“Clearly from the totality of the evidence placed before the court, the defendant coming into contact with the Boko Haram sect came about when he was acting on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the presidential committee set up to look at the security challenges in the Northeast part of the country.
“The evidence is clear and has been confirmed through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. We have shown how the alleged analysis of the mobile phone did not disclose any fact which will necessitate the defendant to defend the charge.
“Clearly, having regards to the four counts before the court, we have analysed the ingredients of the counts and shown how the prosecution has failed to proffer any evidence in support of the ingredients in the four counts.”
Arguing on point of law, Tarfa said the allegation that Ndume failed to disclose material facts about his communication with Konduga, was baseless on the grounds that all necessary information was disclosed to then vice president and the then director-general of the SSS.
Tarfa said: “We have made the point on the issue of non-disclosure of information and we have demonstrated clearly that the defendant has done everything possible to bring peace and security to the country, the Federal Republic Nigeria.”
Responding, prosecuting lawyer, Mrs. G.N Okafor, argued that the prosecution has sufficiently linked the defendant to the alleged crimes and that there was the need for him to offer some explanations through his defence.
Mrs. Okafor said: “The prosecution submits that at the stage of no-case submission, the court as the umpire is called upon to determine whether a prima facie case has been established against the defendant to warrant him to enter his defence or whether the defence discredited the evidence offered by the prosecution.
“The prosecution submits that the charge before this honourable court against the defendant has to do with the failure of the defendant to disclose material information to law enforcement agency as well as rendering support to a terrorist group, Boko Haram.
“My lord, the prosecution has tendered in evidence, exhibits P1, P2, P3, which are the statements made by the defendant. This statement by the defendant connect him the charges levelled by the prosecution.
“We submit that the defendant has even corroborated the evidence of the prosecution to the effect that there was a communication between the defendant and members of the terrorist group.”
Post a Comment
Post a Comment