By Innocent Anaba,

Lagos—The Economic  and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has challenged a fresh application by Lagos lawyer, Mr Rickey Tarfa (SAN), to re-open hearing in his N2.5 billion fundamental rights suit and to advance further evidence.

Ricky Tarfa

Trial judge, Justice Mohammed Idris was to have delivered judgment in the matter, yesterday, but Tarfa said the new evidence was not available at the time his case was argued.

Tarfa had sued EFCC, alongside its chairman, Mr Ibrahim Magu, Moses Awolusi, who arrested Tarfa, and Deputy Director Operations, EFCC, Lagos office, Iliyasu Kwarbai, for allegedly violating his rights after he was arrested for hiding two suspects, Nazaire Sorou Gnanhoue and Modeste Finagnon, both Beninoise, in his Mercedes Benz Sports Utility, thereby shielding them from arrest.

Tarfa in the N2.5 billion suit, is praying the court to restrain the respondents and their agents from further violating his rights, and asked for N20 million as cost of the suit, among others.

Tarfa through his counsel, Mr Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN, who led five other SANs, including Oluyele Delano, Abiodun Owonikoko, Dr Muiz Banire, Sylva Ogwemoh and Uche Obi, and 10  other lawyers, urged the court to allow the use of the further and better affidavit.

Ayorinde argued that the new affidavit was deposed to by a lawyer, Mohammed Awwal Yunusa, who swore that the bank account said to be owned by Justice Mohammed Yunusa, through which Tarfa allegedly paid the judge N225,000, belongs to the lawyer and not the judge.

He argued that the money contributed by some lawyers for Justice Yunusa when he was bereaved was different from the one EFCC alleged Tarfa paid into the judge’s account.

Ayorinde said after admitting that a donation was made to the judge, Tarfa realised that N225,000 was actually given to a lawyer in his firm.

Ayorinde said “The evidence was not available as at the time we took the arguments. It behooves your Lordship to consider it,” he added.

But EFCC’s counsel, Wahab Shittu, opposed the application, arguing it was an after-thought designed to confuse issues and mislead the court. He described Tarfa’s claim as “blatant falsehood,” adding that “the facts cannot be twisted or misrepresented in any way whatsoever.”

Shittu argued that the court having reserved judgment cannot entertain any fresh evidence at this stage of proceedings.

Shittu said Tarfa, in his extra-judicial statement to the commission, stated falsely that he was 43 when his real age is 54.

Shittu said the cheque attached as exhibit in the lawyer’s further and better affidavit is in the name of Mohammed Awwal and not Mohammed Awwal Yunusa.

The court will ruling tomorrow rule on the arguments.