Before his arraignment for alleged N1.4 billion money laundering charges brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the president of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Paul Usoro, says he is not guilty. KEHINDE OSASONA looks at the twists and turns.
The allegation
In the charges, the EFCC alleged that Usoro converted and laundered N1.4 billion by conniving with the governor of Akwa Ibom state, Udom Emmanuel.
Emmanuel was, however, not listed as a defendant in the charge as the EFCC indicated that he “is currently constitutionally immuned against criminal prosecution.”
The anti-graft agency, in a charge marked FHC/418c/18, preferred 10 counts of fraudulent conversion of N1.4 billion against the NBA president.
In the first count, the EFCC alleged that Usoro and some persons conspired in 2015 to convert the sum of N1.4 billion property of the Akwa Ibom state government which they ought to have known formed part of the proceeds of crime.
Also mentioned in the body of the charges were one Nsikan Nkan, described as commissioner for finance, Akwa Ibom state; one Mfon Udomah, described as the accountant-general of Akwa Ibom state; one Uwemedimo Nwoko, described as the Akwa Ibom state attorney-general and Commissioner for Justice; and Margaret Ukpe, all of whom were said to be at large.
Counsel for the EFCC Oyedepo who signed the charge sheet claimeds that the N1.4 billion allegedly converted and laundered by the defendants belonged to the Akwa Ibom state government, arguing that the offence allegedly committed by the NBA President was contrary to Section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011, and liable to be punished under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
Five senior advocates Gboyega Awomolo; Tayo Oyetibo; Theophilus Oyesanya; Onyechi Ikpeazu, and Damian Dodo were listed as witnesses along with some bank representatives to give evidence in the matter.
It’s an intrusion – NBA
However, in a communiqué issued at the end of its National Executive Council (NEC) meeting held in Abuja before his arraignment, the association insisted that the fees that were paid by a client to his lawyer was not only a matter of privilege, but also contractual.
While briefing newsmen after the meeting, Usoro said the NEC deliberated and adopted as its resolution, a report he forwarded to the EFCC in respect of criminal charges filed against him by the federal government.
The NBA president also said he was investigated based on the subsequent outflows from the account to various senior counsel between March 22 and 23, 2016.
NEC observed that EFCC appeared to be straining hard to criminalising the fees that were earned by lawyers for their legitimate work, arguing that the inflow was payment by Governor Udom Emmanuel of Akwa Ibom state in respect of an Election Petition Appeal that was determined by the Supreme Court, of which Usoro served as the coordinating counsel.
The communiqué partly reads: “Usoro’s case is not the first of these intrusions; we all recall the case of Mike Ozekhome, (SAN) when the EFCC attempted to forfeit his fees on the pretext that the funds came
from illegal sources. If these EFCC incursions are not checked, the Bar and the practice of our profession are doomed.”
According to the NBA, the practice of law is founded on the independence of the legal practitioner and his courage to advocate on behalf of his client to the best of his ability and conviction.
“Lawyers now have to work and walk on tip-toe, looking over their shoulders to determine whether the EFCC would be coming after them solely on account of their courage and independence in advocacy. That does not bode well for the profession or for legal practice generally.”
The association held that client-lawyer privilege had judicially and historically acknowledged that issue of fees, between lawyer and his client, as a matter of privilege.
“By questioning lawyers on the legitimate fees that they have earned from clients, the EFCC is breaching the lawyer-client privilege and showing complete disregard for the judgments of the courts in this regard.
“As we all know, non-parties to a contract are complete strangers thereto and lack the locus standi to question and/or determine the propriety of such contract(s).
“The EFCC stands in that position in this and other matters of this nature; it lacks the locus standi to question the basis for the fees,” NBA stated.
The discordant tunes
While the argument lasted, it pitches members of the bar against one another so much that discordant tunes became the order of the day.
Olakunle Edu particularly describes it as ‘Brazen intrusion’ on lawyers’ privilege.
Edu was quoted as having said: “No government agency has the power to regulate fees charged by members of any profession. Lawyers have the right to take up briefs pro bono or also charge any amount. It is equally the right of the client to reject or accept the terms of engagement. Third parties have no locus standi in contractual matters. They are meddlesome Interlopers.”
He also said: “Should we allow EFCC to continue this persecution, today, it is the NBA president; tomorrow it may be used as a precedent to launch criminal investigations into fees charged by members of the Nigerian medical profession, ICAN, NSE and other professional bodies.”
Maintaining a different stance, however, another lawyer, Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN said: “I won’t allow myself or any other right thinking members of the Bar to be dragged into purely what is Mr. Paul Usoro’s personal issue with security agents.
“The issues of fees he allegedly collected for the alleged briefs he did for his clients are or were not done in the cause of his duty when he started occupying the seat of the president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). This issue was there before he put himself forward for NBA election.”
He further said: “That Mr. Paul Usoro SAN is being persecuted, with respect, amounts to interference with the judicial process.
“The court before which he has been arraigned is the only competent authority that can make the pronouncements. Those who believe in his innocence can join the legal team to present his case in court. I do not see his arraignment as harassment of the Bar or Nigerian lawyers. Nigerian lawyers have to obey the law of the land.
“The only people, who by my limited knowledge of law, have immunity from criminal and civil prosecution, while in the office, are the president, vice-president of Nigeria and governors and deputy governors of the states in Nigeria. As lawyers, we owe a duty of respect to and obedience to the rule of law and due process. I say no more.”
The twist
Meanwhile, the scheduled re-arraignment of the NBA president on alleged N1.4 billion fraud charges suffered setback at the last hearing when Justice Chuka Obiozor, to whom the case was assigned, withdrew from the case.
In his ruling, Justice Obiozor was quoted to have said: “I am withdrawing for personal reasons. I hereby return this file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment.”
Blueprint Weekend reports that the withdrawal was second of such after the original judge, Justice Muslim Hassan, withdrew few weeks back at the request of Usoro’s legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, a former NBA president.
The defence team had written to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Adamu Abdul-Kafarati, asking that he retrieved the case file from Justice Hassan.
Though Olanipekun did not specify the reason for the request to take the case away from Justice Hassan, the request might not have been unconnected with the fact that prior to his appointment as a judge, Hassan was for many years a prosecutor with the EFCC.
On December 18, 2018, when Usoro appeared before Justice Hassan for his arraignment, Olanipekun had urged the judge not to take any step on the case, pending the response of the Chief Judge to the transfer request.
Olanipekun said Usoro wanted the case transferred to his state of origin, Akwa Ibom, or Abuja or that if the case would remain in Lagos; it should be transferred to “any other honourable judge apart from my Noble Lord.”
Countering, the prosecuting counsel for the EFCC, Rotimi Oyedepo, opposed Olanipekun, describing his request as “a temporary stay of proceedings,” which Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 had outlawed.
“My Lord cannot act in anticipation of a yet-to-be-taken administrative decision of the Chief Judge to keep this matter in limbo,” Oyedepo argued, insisting that Usoro must be arraigned on December 18.
In his ruling, Justice Hassan agreed with Oyedepo and ordered that Usoro be arraigned after pleading not guilty to the charges, but was admitted to bail.
The Chief Judge was later to grant Usoro’s request and transferred the case from Justice Hassan to Justice Obiozor.
