in

The Henry Okah #MEND Document AFFIDAVIT to South African Court

The Henry Okah #MEND Document AFFIDAVIT to South African Court 1

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”,……….continue reading jare, soon we’ll all know the devil.

Page 2
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,
()”e
approximately…bllro and a half years
ago.
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 ih of
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
Page 3
learned Hattingh AJ on the 1ih 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
Page 4
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
_ …•
Page 5
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. ..
Page 6
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
—-~——————————————————
Page
7
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
Page 8
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”.
Page 9
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
coconspirators.
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
Page 10
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
Page 11
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

————————————
Page 12
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.
46. For the aforegoing reasons, I respectfully state that these factors
constitute
new facts, which were previously not presented to either the
Regional Court
Magistrate or to the High Court and these new facts and
circumstances
entitle me to be released on bail on such conditions and in
such amount as
the above Honourable Court may deem fit.
47. Although my
trial has been set down for hearing in the above Honourable
Court to commence
on the 1st of October 2012, I respectfully state that it is
extremely
unlikely that this case will be finalised during the last term
of 2012. A
perusal of the police docket clearly indicates that in order for the
State to
prove the allegations contained in the charge sheet, the State will
have to
call close to 50 witnesses. The list of witnesses attached to the
indictment
contains’ almost in its entirety witnesses who are in Nigeria. I can
only
imagine that it will be a logistical nightmare for the State to secure
the
attendance of all these witnesses in South Africa, and that delays in
this
Page 13
regard will be unavoidable. Should the matter go on trial, I
intend calling in
excess of 100 witnesses from Nigeria in defence of my
case.
48. I am not certain as to whether the State will apply to the Trial
Court that
certain of the witnesses’ evidence be taken on commission. This in
itself
will result in the trial being protracted for a very lengthy period of
time.
Moreover, this trial will be extremely costly and I cannot envisage at
this
stage whether I will even be able to afford legal representation for
such a
lengthy period of time, let alone whether it would be viable for such
a
procedure to be followed.
49. I have been arrested on the 2nd of October
2010 and at the commencement
of the trial, I would have been in custody for
two years. I have been advised
that this in itself is also another factor
warranting my release on bail, as the
Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa provides that any person
accused of having committed a criminal
offence must be afforded the right
to a speedy trial. I submit that these
factors also constitute new facts which
should be considered by the above
Honourable Court.
50. In order not to prolix this application unnecessarily,
I wish to refer to the
judgment of the High Court on appeal to it in terms of
Section 65 of the
Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977. With respect to the
learned Judge, it is
clear that he attached a lot of weight to the affidavit
by the investigating
officer, Colonel Zeeman (exhibit UN”)(see judgment on
appeal, pp 6 to 8).
51. Although Section 60(11)(a) provides that I should
satisfy the Court that
Page 14
exceptional circumstances exist which in
the interest of justice permit my
release, I respectfully state that the new
facts and circumstances set out
hereinbefore cumulatively constitute
exceptional circumstances which
warrant my release on bail on such conditions
as the above Honourable
Court may deem fit. Legal argument will be addressed
to the above
Honourable Court at the hearing of this application in respect
of the
aforegoing issues.
52. I deny the allegations contained in the
indictment and will plead not guilty to
the charges proffered against me by
the State.
53. In the indictment it is alleged by the State that I visited
Port Harcourt in
Nigeria during February 2010 to carry out certain acts in
Nigeria (indictment,
paragraphs 9 to 17).
54. On the day of the bombing of
1 October 2010, I received a call from Mr
Moses Jituboh, the Head of Personal
Security to President Jonathan, who
solicited my assistance and continued
cooperation with President Goodluck
Jonathan towards shifting blame for the
bombings to the North of Nigeria.
55. The State attempts to substantiate this
theory with contradictory statements
from its witnesses and detainees held by
the Nigerian Government.
56. One of its witnesses Mr Emmanuel Allison claims
his two blackberry phones
to which I sent incrirninatinq SMS’es were
destroyed or lost.
57. His reason for destroying the phone, being threatening
text messages he
Page 15
alleges to have received from “my boys.” It is
absurd to destroy a cell
phone on account of harassing or threatening text
massage when the sim
card can easily be replaced.
58. Mr Allison also
claims to know nothing about the bombings of
1 October 2010 but his claim of
ignorance is disputed by detainee Mr Obi
Nwabueze who asserts that the State
witness Mr Emmanuel Allison, in fact
coordinated the bombing of 1 October
2010.
59. The purpose of my visit to Nigeria between February and March 2010
was
to market a South African manufactured brick making machine to the
Niger
Delta Development Corporation (“NDDC”) and the Ministry of Niger
Delta.
This product, I believe could drastically reduce building cost in
Niger Delta.
A copy of the relevant documents substantiating the
abovementioned is
attached hereto marked Annexure “HEO 6”.
60. In order to
give the above Honourable Court certain background facts, I
wish to allude to
the following.
61. The Niger Delta where I come from, is an impoverished part
of Nigeria that
accounts for close to Four Billion Rand of the daily revenue
of the Nigeria
Government, yet it can best be described as one big “squatter
camp” due to
it being without electricity, running water, proper roads,
schools, hospitals,
sewerage etc.
62. Introducing this brick making
machine was my contribution towards
Page 16
alleviating the suffering of
the people of the Niger Delta.
63. During my visit to Nigeria, I attended a
meeting with the Minister for the
Niger Delta, Mr Godsday Orubebe who
promised to examine my proposal
when the Government of President Goodluck
Jonathan was firmly rooted.
64. Mr Goodluck Jonathan was then the acting
president of Nigeria.
65. In Port Harcourt, I was schedule to meet with the
Managing Director of the
NDDC, Mr Chibuzor Ugwoha. This meeting was arranged
by Messrs
Rogers Nda and Larry Ogbomo. A copy of an affidavit by Larry
Ogbomo
confirming same is attached hereto marked Annexure “HEO 7”.
66. I
stayed at the Novotel hotel where I usually stayed whilst visiting
Port
Harcourt.
67. During my stay at the Novotel hotel, I was visited by
numerous people as is
the usual with me and most of these visitors were
seeking some form of
assistance from me.
68. One such person was Mr
Raphael Damfebo who had during 2009 been
introduced to me by Mr Zion Amada
whom I had known for many years. Mr
Damfebo claimed to be unemployed and
caring for a terminally ill fiance. Mr
Damfebo also made mention about
previously working for a former militia
commander from the Niger Delta who
had abandoned him in the pursuit of
securing lucrative contracts from the
Nigerian Government.
Page 17
69. I have since 2009 assisted Mr Damfebo
financially as far as it was possible,
believing him to be jobless and caring
for a terminally ill fiance.
70. Upon my arrival in Port Harcourt, I was
informed by Mr Larry Ogbomon that
Mr Ugwoha was unavailable for our
meeting.
71. I waited a few days and decided to leave Port Harcourt when Mr
Ugwoha
had still not returned and Mr Ogbomon and Mr Nda refused to
assume
responsibility for the cost of my stay at the Novotel hotel. I
departed Port
Harcourt for Lagos where I spent a few days.
72. The State
attempts, in the police docket, to give the impression that my
relationship
with President Goodluck Jonathan is very bad, but the contrary
is true, my
relationship with President Goodluck Jonathan is very good and
I have known
President Goodluck Jonathan since about 1999 from when he
was Deputy Governor
of the 8ayelsa State.
73. Since December 2009 when he sought my support
towards his campaign
·for presidency of Nigeria, we had kept in constant
touch.
74. President Goodluck Jonathan used his closest advisor Mr Oronto
Douglas
or the Minister for Niger Delta Mr Godsday Orubebe to keep in touch
with
me.
75. Mr Oronto Douglas’ numbers are known to me being
+2348055077077 and
+2348033003890 while Mr Godsday Orubebe used the
numbers
+2348037178432 and +2348055296693.
Page 18
76. During March
2010, the then acting President Goodluck Jonathan informed
me that he was
sending Mr Oronto Douglas to the Republic of South Africa
to discuss certain
issues with me. I attach hereto marked Annexure
“HEO 8” a handwritten note he
wrote whilst visiting Republic of South
Africa.
77. Mr Oronto Douglas
arrived on 31 March 2010 and departed 1 April 2010.
78. During my meeting
with Mr Douglas, he informed me that the Northern
region of Nigeria was
attempting to prevent President Goodluck Jonathan
from becoming the president
of Nigeria and required my assistance.
79. During the evening of 4 April
2010, I received a call from Mr Douglas who
informed me that a certain Ms
Diezani Allison-Madueke desperately
required speaking to me and requested him
for my phone number.
80. Mr Douglas explained to me that she required my
assistance in persuading
President Goodluck Jonathan to appoint her as
Minister for Petroleum.
81. At Mr Oronto Douglas’ prompting, I reluctantly
accepted.
82. During the evening of 4 April 2012 and the morning of 5 April
2010, I
received approximately twenty calls from Ms Madueke explaining that
she
was competing for the post of Minister of Petroleum with the now Minister
of
Foreign Affairs Mr Odien Ajumogobia and required my assistance to tip
the
scales in her favour.
Page 19
83. Ms Madueke requested that I put
in a good word for her with President
Goodluck Jonathan whom she said had
asked to speak to me.
84. At the time of her first call, President Goodluck
Jonathan was busy and she
continuously called or sent text messages to update
me on the Mr
Jonathan’s availability.
85. During the calls he used two
different telephone numbers.
86. One of these numbers was +2347034039944,
which she informed me was
her number and another, which I did not save, which
she had said belonged
to her personal assistant.
87. I finally spoke to
President Goodluck Jonathan during the early hours of 5
April 2010.
88.
During the course of our telephone conversation, he informed me that he
was
sending Mr Godsday Orubebe the Minister of Niger Delta to get my
response to
the meeting with Mr Oronto Douglas and to brief me on other
matters.
89.
The last call I received from Ms Madueke was at 6:41 :35 on 4 April
2010
during which she thanked me for my contribution in influencing
her
appointment as Minister of Petroleum.
90. Tension between the Muslim
North and Christian South in Nigeria has been
running high and I was/am
conscious of inflaming an already volatile
Page 20
situation still
apparent in Nigeria.
91. Mr Godsday Orubebe informed me that President
Goodluck Jonathan was
disturbed about rumours of me routing for General
Babangida from the
North and wanted me to place an advert in the Nigerian
newspapers in
support of him.
92. Mr Orubebe further said that President
Goodluck Jonathan was upset with
General Babangida for contesting the
election and was going to stop him,
one way or another.
93. They intended
to use the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) to arrest General
Babangida on charges relating to an alleged
embezzlement of public funds
during his tenure in office if all attempts to
discourage him from
participating in the elections failed.
94. Mr Orubebe also explained to me
that the North appeared to have lost
respect for former militia leaders from
the Niger Delta that appeared as
. illiterate thugs going around ministries
in Abuja and making threats in the
bid to secure government contracts. He
went on to suggest that since I still
had credibility and commanded the
respect of most fighters, I should appear
publicly as the leader of these
former fighters.
95. He assured me in this meeting that President Goodluck
Jonathan was
determined to ensure that political power never returned to the
North which
Mr Orubebe described as parasites.
Page 21
96. To achieve
this, President Goodluck Jonathan would pretend to do only one
term in office
and once entrenched, he would insist on a second term.
97. Mr Orubebe in that
meeting said the North had their chance and they put
forward a very ill and
ailing candidate for President.
98. Before his departure, the Minister of
Niger Delta asked one of his aides, Mr
Rodney Ambaowei to attend a
demonstration of the brick machine I had
previously tried to market to his
ministry. This is confirmed in the documents
attached above marked Annexure
“HEO 9”
99. Mr Ambaowei and I attended the demonstration at the premises of
the
company in North Riding, Johannesburg.
100. Approximately one month
after Mr Godsday Orubebe’s departure from the
Republic of South Africa, I
received a call from him informing me they
(President Goodluck Jonathan and
Mr Orubebe) were sending someone to
discuss confidential issues with
me.
101. The person delegated was Mr Abraham Gillow and aide to Mr
Godsday
Orubebe.
102. It is usual for the Nigerian Government to send
representative to discuss
issues capable of causing them embarrassment, if
exposes and such issues
are never discussed over the telephone.
103. On
his arrival, Mr Gillow informed me that the Nigerian Government wanted
Page
22
me to supply weapons to the Nigerian Military and I replied that I was
not
interested.
104. He then asked if I knew where weapons could be
purchased in the Republic
of South Africa.
105. He explained to me that
the Nigerian Government had obtained quotes from
China and former Eastern
Block Countries and wished to compare these
quotes with the Republic of South
Africa.
106. I then proceeded in his presence to call Dave Sheer
Firearms.
107. The telephone call was placed on speaker for his benefit and
he heard from
a representative of Dave Sheer Firearms, the conditions
attached to
exporting weapons out of the Republic of South Africa.
108. In
hindsight, I believe that Mr Gillow was sent on a mission by
President
Goodluck Jonathan to verify rumours making the round in Nigeria
that I was
importing weapons to Nigeria.
109. President Jonathan, I
believe was at this point in time plotting my arrest to
prevent my
participation in the Nigerian elections.
110. I was in constant touch with
President Goodluck Jonathan through his
Ministers and Advisors until my
arrest on 2 October 2010 and at all this time
wrongly believing my
relationship with President Goodluck Jonathan IS
good.
Page 23
111. For
instance I spoke at length with Mr Oronto Douglas on 29 and 30
September
2010.
112. Mr Douglas’ telephone number during these calls was
+2348055077077.
113. It has come to my knowledge that Mr Bassey Umoren and
others confirmed
by the State as its witnesses have been detained for more
than a year
without access to lawyers. Their freedom has been tied to them
giving false
testimony against me at any cost during my trial.
114. The
police docket provides no evidence of the construction of compartments
in the
motor vehicles utilised in the bombings of 14 March 2010 and
1 October 2010
nor are there any fingerprint or any other evidence from the
recovered motor
vehicles to link anyone. I attach hereto marked Annexures
“HEO 9” and “HEO
10” an e-mail from Mr Bassey Umoren dated 31 March
2010 requesting me for
assistance in setting up a welding business and an
e-mail dated 8 April 2012
thanking me for helping him.
115. A study of the police docket further
reveals the following: The evidence
supplied by the State in the police
docket in the form of photographs of
alleged victims of the bombings of 1
October 2010 and 14 March 2010
provides proof of tampering with a possible
crime scene by the Nigerian
Authorities.
116. In order to influence the
proceedings against me in South Africa, the
Nigerian Government presented
staged photographs showing alleged
– ~-~—-~- — —-
Page 24
victims
being in various stages of being undressed.
117. The bodies in the
photographs are intact showing no signs of trauma
associated with a bombing
and they appear in underwear in some cases.
118. With reference to the
photographs of alleged victims of the bombing of
1 October 2010 provided by
the State in the police docket, great effort has
been made to conceal the
identities of the corpses positioned by the
Nigerian Government. The reason
for this being is that these individuals are
not victims of any bombing but
corpses taken from a local mortuary for a
photo shoot.
119. The victims
have been placed facing downwards to render them
unrecognizable. Those
surrounded by the remnants of burnt out motor
vehicles are spotless with no
sign of soot or burns even as the tarred road
beneath these bodies appears to
be damaged by fire.
120. The Nigerian government claimed in a statement
issued by the
spokesperson for its State Security Services (SSS) that 6 motor
vehicles
were purchased for use in the bombings. The State provided 2
documents
which the State claims to be purchase receipts for the motor
vehicles used
in the bombings of 1 October 2010. No further receipts of any
were
provided.
121. The purchase receipts provided are clearly printed
from the same computer
by two different individuals approximately 35
kilometres apart.
Page 25
122. There are no purchasers’ signatures on the
purchase receipts and a
deliberate misspelling of my brother’s surname in
other to present the
impression that both motor vehicles were purchased by
him.
123. In addition, both documents are dated 17 September 2010 but on one,
the
seller also dates it 17 October 2010 which is most likely the month in
which
the documents were generated.
124. The State has as at dated hereof,
not provided any photographs of the
autopsies of alleged victims of the
bombings.
125. On examination of the pathology documentation relating to an
alleged victim
of 1 October 2010 reveals inter alia the following:

125.1. Mr Bala is reported to have passed away on 1 October 2010, at
the
Kings Care Hospital Zn (zone) 4 Abuja. Evidence provided by the
State
indicates that Mr Bala’s corpse was transferred to the Maitama
General
Hospital Mortuary on the same day of his death, 1 October
2010.
125.2.
This corpse was escorted to the Maitama General Hospital by police
Corporal
Akor Emmanuel, though it is not indicated where this police
corporal found
this corpse. An order for post mortem examination as
is required by Nigerian
law in cases of unnatural death, was served
on the C.M.D (Chief Medical
Director) of the Maitama General
Hospital Abuja on 6 October 2010, and the
post mortem examination
– ——————————–
Page 26
from
evidence provided by the State indicates to have been
conducted on 6 October
2010 at the Maitama General Hospital as
per the order for post mortem
examination.
125.3. The post mortem examination of Mr Verty Bala from the
report of this
examination was witnessed by a C.S.P. (Chief Superintendent
of
Police) whose identity is not indicated.
125.4. On conclusion of the
post mortem examination of Mr Verty Bala, a
warrant to bury was issued on the
same day of the autopsy, 6
October 2010. A warrant to bury indicates the
conclusion of post
mortem examinations and all investigation requiring the
presence of
the corpse.
125.5. Contradicting the evidence supplied by the
State on Mr Verty Bala, is
the Report of Medical Practitioner attached to Mr
Bala’s file, which
was stamped by a hospital more than 50 kilometres away
from the
Maitama General Hospital where Mr Verty Bala’s corpse is
reported
to have been kept since 1 October 2010.
125.6. Mr Verty Bala’s
Report of Medical Practitioner was stamped and
signed by a medical
practitioner at the National Hospital, Abuja, 2
days after Mr Bala’s reported
post mortem examination at the
Maitama General Hospital, and possibly
released the corpse to the
family for burial as per warrant to bury.
Page
27
125.7. The medical practitioner at the National Hospital, Abuja who
had
access to Mr Verty Bala’s corpse, describes the corpse 8 days
after
the death and 2 days after a post mortem examination as fresh
and
neatly dressed with only a 1 mm puncture wound. This, contradicting
a
police report which recorded cuts on the body of Mr Bala on 1
October
2010.
125.8. The Maitama General Hospital and the National Hospital, Abuja
are
two entirely different, unaffiliated hospitals approximately
50
kilometres apart. A doctor in one hospital cannot attend to patients
or
victims of another hospital. Such discrepancies apply to all
forensic
pathology reports provided by the State for the bombings of 15
March
2010 and 1 October 2010.
126. The police docket states the following
in respect of the alleged victims of the
1 October 2010 bombing:-
126.1.
All 7 alleged victims were escorted by the same policeman Corporal
Akor
Emmanuel to three different hospitals namely the National
Hospital Abuja,
Maitama General Hospital and the Asokoro General
Hospital, all of them being
remarkable distances apart.
126.2. The same Corporal Akor Emmanuel is again
indicated to have
escorted the corpse of Mr Verty Bala reported not to have
died on the
scene but at the Kings Care Hospital Zone 4, Abuja.
Page
28
126.3. The same medical practitioner confirmed with a stamp from
the
National Hospital Abuja to have examined the bodies from 3
different
hospitals without being in possession of an authorisation to do
so.
126.4. This medical practitioner claimed to have conducted
investigations
and determined the cause of death of all victims, days after
the post
mortem examinations and the issuing of the warrants to
bury.
126.5. The post mortem reports are not signed by the pathologists
who
conducted the autopsy, most probably an indication that
the
pathologists at the Maitama General Hospital, Asokoro General
Hospital
and the National Hospital Abuja refused to be co-opted.
These post mortem
examinations may in fact never have taken
place.
126.6. In all 7 post
mortem examinations of alleged victims of the 1 October
2010 bombing, the
same C.S.P. (Chief Superintendent of Police) is a
witness even though some
autopsies were indicated to have been
conducted the same day in three
different hospitals approximately 60
kilometres apart.
126.7. Autopsies in
Nigerian Government hospitals are conducted within
normal working hours
between 9 am and 5 pm.
126.8. No death certificates were issued for any of
the alleged victims of 1
October 2010 in spite of the fact that Nigerian law
forbids the burial or
Page 29
issuing of a warrant to bury, without
possession of a death certificate.
126.9. There is no evidence that the crime
scene was secured for
investigators which the police docket indicates only
arrived at the
crime scene 2 day after the bombing of 1 October
2010.
126.10. The only available explanation for the corpses and
evidence
photographed at the scene of bombing is that the bodies
were
brought to the scene 2 days later when the investigators arrived
on
the scene.
126.11. The corpses were turned face down and in different
positions with
an attempt to conceal their identities.
126.12. The poor
picture quality is deliberate and renders it impossible to
identify any of
the victims.
126.13. With regards to the alleged victim of the 15 March 2010
bombing
the death certificate was issued 8 months after the alleged
death
and burial.
126.14. The Nigerian Coroner’s Act forbids burial in the
case of unnatural
deaths without an autopsy, death certificate and warrant to
bury.
127. The issuing of Mr Igbe’s death certificate 8 months after his
burial is
preposterous. The death certificate of Mr Igbe an alleged victim of
the
bombing of 15 March, 2010, indicates that he was last seen alive by
a
– – – – —————–
Page 30
witness on the day the death
certificate was issued 8 months after his
death.
128. The indictment
alleges in the summary of substantial facts that I was a
leader of the
Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (“MEND”).
The State also
levelled certain allegations against MEND. See Summary of
Substantial Facts,
paras 2 to 9 – pp 21 to 22 of the indictment.
129. An insight into the
workings of MEND will assist in providing a better
understanding of the
bombings of 1 October 2010 and the involvement of
President Goodluck
Jonathan’s Government in these bombings. MEND is
an amalgam of independent
groups in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria,
which groups struggled to get
their land back. This has been going on for
approximately 40 years.
130.
It is my belief that President Goodluck Jonathan’s Government working with
a
faction of MEND planned and execute the bombings of 14 March 2010
and 1
October 2010.
131. The purpose of the 14 March 2010 bombing in my opinion was
to create an
atmosphere of insecurity in Niger Delta where President Goodluck
Jonathan
at that time, was fighting to oust the governor Mr Emmanuel
Uduaghan
whom President Goodluck Jonathan intended to replace with his
Minister for
Niger Delta, Mr Godsday Orubebe.
132. The bombing on 1
October 2010 was a platform for the elimination of

————————————————–
Page 31
political
opposition from the North in the form of General Ibrahim 8abangida.
The
bombings of 1 October 2010 was also intended by the President
Goodluck
Jonathan Government to create anti North sentiments nationwide
in order to
galvanize support from other sections of Nigeria against other
Northern
candidates in the Presidential elections.
133. Under the arrangement, MEND I
believe was not to claim responsibility for
the bombings which the Nigerian
government hoped to pin on General
8abangida and other Northern
elements.
134. The claim of responsibility by the central group for a bombing
possibly
carried out by the a faction of MEND punctured the plans of
President
Goodluck Jonathan to round up his opposition and hold them in
custody
until after the elections.
135. After the bombings of 1 October
2010, the Government of President
Goodluck Jonathan solicited my cooperation
in getting the central group to
retract their claim of responsibility. In
this regard, I was contacted by
amongst others, Mr Moses Jituboh, a senior
police officer and Head of
Personal Security for the Nigerian president and
Mr Tony Uranta, a close
ally of President Goodluck Jonathan who caters for
“dirty tasks”.
136. Mr Jituboh is always with the President and would not
dare attempt to
facilitate such an arrangement, without authorization from
the President.
137. Mr Jituboh called me from his cell with number
+234807703333 at 7:20:42
Page 32
pm on 1 October 2010. In anticipation of
my success in extracting a
retraction, the Nigerian Government began the
process of rounding up
opposition politicians. Amongst those arrested was the
Campaign manager
of General Babangida, Dr Raymond Dokpesi.
138. My refusal
to cooperate in this scheme resulted in President Goodluck
Jonathan placing a
call to President Jacob Zuma during the evening of 1
October 2010, requesting
for President Zuma’s personal assistance in
securing my arrest. My
noncooperation was interpreted by President
Goodluck Jonathan as support for
the Northern politicians. The South
African Government’s direct interference
was responsible for securing
search and arrest warrants against me.
139.
Mr Jituboh’s post bombing call to me was widely publicised in the
Nigerian
media. If he made these call without the approval of the Nigerian
President
to someone whom the Nigerian Government labels a terrorist, Mr
Jituboh
would not only have lost his job but would have immediately been
arrested.
140. Subsequent to Mr Jituboh’s call, I ignored 4 calls from the
Minister for the
Niger Delta, Mr Orubebe and 2 calls from an aide to the
Minister, Mr
Abraham Gillow. I assumed they were also calling to solicit my
assistance in
diverting blame for the bombings of 1 October 2010.
141.
During the morning of 2 October 2010, I received two SMS’es from Mr
Tony
Uranta. As earlier stated, Mr Uranata is acknowledged by Nigerians to
be
responsible for “dirty tasks” President Goodluck Jonathan would not wish
to
Page 33
be traced to him.
142. The SMS’es were sent from Mr Uranta’s
number +2348075407801.
143. The first of the two SMS’es sent by Mr Uranta at
10h23:05am stated; – “Ask
J.G to withdraw statement.” (J.G being Jomo Gbomo
the spokesperson for
MEND).
144. The final SMS sent at 10h28:32 am states;
– “The government will blame on
Northern elements.”
145. When confronted
by the Nigerian media about these claims, Mr Uranta’s
defence was that his
phone was stolen on the day in question and the thief
must have sent me the
SMS’es.
146. President Jonathan’s earlier exoneration of MEND and me in the
bombings
of 1 October 2010 was done with the belief that MEND would retract
its
statement paving the way for President Jonathan’s planned persecution
of
political opposition. I attached hereto marked Annexure “HEO 11”
several
press articles published on the internet in this regard.
147.
President Jonathan’s only concern after the bombings of 1 October 2010
was my
unwillingness to assist them in directing blame for the bombings
at
opposition candidates from the North of Nigeria.
148. The embarrassment
caused to Mr Goodluck Jonathan by the continued
insistence in its claim of
responsibility by MEND provoked President
Page 34
Jonathan’s relentless
pursuit and persecution of me with the assistance of
the South African
Government.
149. The State has made a desperate attempt to construct its
fictional case
against me based on its vague knowledge of my itinerary whilst
in Nigeria,
my relationship with President Goodluck Jonathan and other
members of
the Nigerian Government.
150. There are daily attacks against
oil installations and workers in the Niger
Delta which the Nigerian
Government with the assistance of the oil
companies cover-up. The cover-up is
necessary to stabilise global oil prices
and increase investor confidence in
Nigeria. Oil companies are unable to
hide such attacks only when forced to
declare force majeure. Small attacks
are declared to be industrial accident
and abductions by militia groups
raising funds for logistics are termed to be
random and rare acts of piracy. I
attached hereto marked Annexure “HEO 12”
press articles published on the
internet substantiating same.
151. It is
now clear that the State possesses no such evidence and is now forced
to rely
entirely on untrustworthy statements.
152. The State was very reluctant to
bring forward these untrustworthy
statements at my previous bail
hearing.
153. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other Non
Government
Organisations have clearly documented the ruthlessness, cruelty
and
Page 35
mercilessness of the Nigerian Security Services in the bid to
extract
confessions. A copy of their report will be made available to the
above
Honourable Court and the hearing of this matter, if requested, and is
not
attached hereto in order not to unnecessary attach to many
supporting
documents to my affidavit.
154. I attach hereto and statement
by Obi Nwabueze marked Annexure “HEO
13″ in which it is stated that he has
been interrogated by the SSS in respect
of this matter and has been offered
freedom and money in exchange for
false testimony against me.
155. I
believe that they are denied access to lawyers sometimes for months until
the
interrogators are satisfied with their statement. I myself was a victim
of
this process while in custody of the State Security Services of Nigeria
during
2008.
156. The State’s analysis of items allegedly confiscated in a
questionable search
of my home had no connection with the items recovered
from the scene of
the bombings or suspects in Nigeria.
157. In addition no
links have been established between me and the cell phones
allegedly
recovered by the Nigerian investigators from the scene of the
bombings of 1
October 2010.
158. Mr Timi Alaibe is a very fraudulent politician in Nigeria
known for amassing
great wealth through the theft of public funds. He has
been a civil servant all
Page 36
his life but is worth hundreds of
millions of dollars. He based his claims of
my involvement on a gut feeling
and was trying to curry favour with
President Goodluck Jonathan ahead of the
governorship elections in the
Bayelsa State.
159. Mr Frances Osuwo (also
spelled Osuvwo) through his lawyer complained
that he was forced to sign a
statement prepared by Mr Raphael Damfebo
and the SSS. Mr Osuwo is completely
illiterate and disputes everything
contained in the statement he signed which
was later explained to him by
his lawyer.
160. Mr Francis Osuwo was denied
access to a lawyer until he signed the
statement required by the Nigerian
interrogators.
161. There has been reports in the Media that Mr Osuwo has
since passed away
whilst in custody and I attach hereto marked Annexure “HEO
14” proof
thereof.
162. In my case, the Nigerian Government attempted to
obtain confessions from
one of its informants in South Africa Mr Justin
Malcolm Umejesi (aka Ben
Jessy) whom they had declared wanted under the name
Ben Ebere.
163. Mr Justin Malcolm Umejesi (aka Ben Jessy) is well known to
the Nigerian
High Commission in Johannesburg and has survived by feeding his
handler
Mr Ado at the High Commission with false information for several
years.
164. The High Commission only found out during my previous bail
hearing that
Page 37
Mr Justin Umejesi has had no contact with me since
early 2007.
165. The Nigerian Government had intended to obtain a confession
statement
from Mr Umejesi who was to have admitted to seeing me in possession
of
items he now believed to be used in the of bombs.
166. The revelation
at my previous bail hearing that Mr Umejesi had been
scamming the High
Commission for years and the High Commission’s later
discovery of a
photograph that Mr Umejesi had taken with the South African
President Mr
Jacob Zuma making the rounds within the Nigerian community
and have rendered
Mr Umejesi useless to the Nigerian Government.
167. Contrad iction in the
statements of the State’s witnesses and detainees in
Nigeria comes from the
Nigerian State Security Services and its ballistics
and/or explosives
experts.
168. The spokesperson for the State Security Services of Nigeria, Ms
Marylyn
agar, in a statement to the media, a copy of which is attached
hereto
marked Annexure “HEO 15” and following question and answer
session
with the Nigerian media, made the following assertions: –
168.1.
Six motor vehicles were purchased by the alleged perpetrators of the
1
October 2010 bombing for use in the bombing which is contrary to
the
statement obtained from one of the detainees in Nigeria who
states that four
motor vehicles were purchased for this. The State
has supplied 2 purchase
receipts in support of the purchase for 2 of
Page 38
the alleged 6 motor
vehicles.
168.2. Ms Marilyn Ogar of the SSS further confirms that her
department
foiled a bombing by MEND using two of the six motor
vehicles.
168.3. This bombing according to Ms Marilyn Ogar was planned for
29
September 2010, the SSS claimed to be in possession of the
car
bombs.
168.4. None of the statements presented by the State supports
this claim of
such possession by the SSS.
169. The press release by the
SSS highlights measures taken to counter the
threat posed by the warnings of
MEND of its intention to detonate the car
bombs at the independence
anniversary celebration of 1 October 2010.
170. Of great importance to the
SSS was the use of cell phone jammers which
the SSS claims was credited for
preventing the detonation of these bombs
closer to Eagle Square where the
celebrations were held.
171. The SSS without a doubt confirms that the bombs
were detonated by the
use of cellular telephones.
172. There is no mention
in any of the statements provided by the State
witnesses of the use of
cellular phones in the detonation of the bombs.
173. The State’s witnesses
claim rather that it was timers that were used.
Page 39
174. In a report
submitted to the Court and produced by the State at my earlier
bail
application, the Nigerian bomb experts reported to have recovered
fragments
of two cellular phones at the scene of the bombings of
1 October
2010.
175. These phones were linked to the bombings by the unique
alterations
peculiar to its use for detonating bombs.
176. Such
alterations include multi core cables attached to both phones.
177. The
Nigerian bomb expert confirms an earlier claim made by Ms Marilyn
Ogar of the
State Security Services that cell phones were indeed used in
detonating the
bombs.
178. No timers or fragments of such were recovered at the bomb scene
or
present in the states docket.
179. Contradicting the findings of the
Nigerian experts are the statements of
State witnesses and Nigerian detainees
who refer to a timer and there is no
mention of the use of cell
phones.
180. The statement of Warrant Officer L.A Smith of the Forensic
Science
Laboratory of the S.A.P.S, infers in paragraph 4 that the Nigerian
analysis of
the scene of the bombings of 1 October 2010, yielded evidence
pointing to
the use of nitro-glycerine based explosive used in the twin
bombings.
181. This evidence is at odds with the statements of its witnesses,
the Nigerian
Page 40
detainees and claims of the State that dynamite was
used in the bombings.
182. Dynamite available in Nigeria is originally
imported for commercial use in
solid mineral mining and oil
exploration.
183. The use of nitro-glycerine in commercial explosive such as
dynamite has
been discontinued for decades due to the unstable nature of
nitro-glycerine.
184. Used in dynamite decades ago, nitro-glycerine was known
to “weep” out of
the mixture and cause explosions and death just by
transporting this deadly
compound.
185. Modern day dynamite has its active
agent, ammonium nitrate and not nitroglycerine.
186. Upon the recent arrest
in Nigeria of Mr Segun 1I0ri, Mr Nonso Nwosu (A
banker) and Mr Chima Orlu,
the spokesperson for the State Security
Services of Nigeria, Ms Marilyn Ogar
described the contributions of the
belowmentioned individuals in the bombings
of 15 March 2010 and 1
October 2010 as follows: –
SEGUN ILORI
186.1.
Arms trafficker who supplied weapons used in the bombing of
1 October 2010.
Mr 1I0ri was also alleged to have supplied other
components of the bombs of 1
October 2010. The components were
never named. The allegations against Mr
Ilori are outrageous as
— — —————————-
Page
41
there has never been any mention of firearms in either bombing of
15
March or 1 October 2010.
186.2. There is no mention in any of the
witness statements of any activity
relating to any bombing which Mr IIori was
engaged in.
186.3. The State desires to tie Mr IIori to both bombings with
the hope that
an innocent SMS sent to him by me during February 2010,
be
construed as part of a conspiracy to commit a horrendous crime.
186.4.
This SMS which sought Mr IIori’s assistance in paying monies to
certain
accounts was provided to the Nigerian authorities by the
SAPS.
186.5. The
monies disbursed by Mr IIori were to the accounts of individuals
who had
requested financial assistance.
186.6. One such individual, Mrs. Beatrice
Inaku is a widow who I have
supported since the death of her
husband.
186.7. Her child resides in England and sent an email to me during
or about
this time expressing her gratitude for my support.
186.8. I
attached hereto marked Annexure “HEO 16” e-mails substantiating
the
abovementioned.
MR CHIMA ORLU
– – — ——————
Page
42
186.9. Is alleged to have built the bombs of 1 October 2010
and
transported same to Abuja.
186.10. This claim contradicts previous
statements by State witnesses Mr
Emmanuel Allison and detainee Mr Obi
Nwabueze and the SSS
who were all in agreement that Mr Obi Nwabueze
transported both
motor vehicles to Abuja.
MR NONSO NWOSU
186.11. He is
alleged to have coordinated the movement of funds utilised in
the bombings of
15 March 2010 and 1 October 2010.
186.12. This allegation against Mr Nwosu
was based on a SMS as this
claim is at odds with the earlier report made by
the SSS and
investigating officer in Nigeria, in which Mr Abdul Abubakar
named
my brother Charles Okah as the financier of the bombings of
1
October 2010.
187. A list of people that purportedly died as a result of the
bombing, did not
include one Tahir Hassan Zakari Biu, copies of the contact
details of the
victims of the October bomb blast and the High Court of South
Africa
Indictment dated 23 August 2011.
188. It was reported in the media
that Tahir’s Hassan Zakari Biu family was
compensated by the Nigerian
government in a widely publicised manner, for
his death as a result of the
bombing.
Page 43
189. I attached hereto as Annexure “HEO 17” an article by
the Daily Champion
dated 3 February 2011 and an article by Sahara reporters
dated
26 December 2011 and marked “HEO 18” confirming same.
190. I repeat
what I have already stated in my original bail application, namely
that:

190.1. There was no likelihood that my release on bail will endanger
the
public safety or that of any particular individual;
190.2. I have no
history of violent behaviour and do not have any disposition
to commit
offences referred to in Schedule 1 of the Criminal
Procedure Act whilst
released on bail. I hold no grudge against
anyone either;
190.3. I
submitted that there is no likelihood that I will attempt to evade
my
trial;
190.4. I submitted that this is evident from my conduct since
the inception of
the investigation;
190.5. I have not supplied any false
information nor have I supplied any
false information for purpose of this
application;
190.6. I undertake to attend court faithful on each and every
occasion to
which the case might be postponed, I have no intention to live
the life
of on a fugitive.
— — —————
Page 44
191. The
State replied on the abovementioned as follows: –
191.1. The State said that
there was a likelihood that if I will be released on
bail I will attempt to
evade the trial;
191.2. The State stated that I am extremely wealthy and well
connected.
Thus I am in the financial position to disappear;
191.3. The
State stated that in my own handwriting I attested to previously
having
attempted and, or having bribed officials;
191.4. I previously attempted to
evade justice in Nigeria and was later
arrested in Angola and deported back
to Nigeria;
191.5. Indicative in my diary I can rely on the systems of
valuable and
influential sources and aids;
191.6. The State stated that
the local investigation into the current charges
preferred against me is
largely reliant on assistance from the
Nigerian authorities. As such, a
request for mutual and legal
assistance will be submitted to the Nigerian
authorities;
191.7. The State stated that in all likelihood I will attempt or
influence or
intimidate witnesses or would conceal or destroy
evidence.
192. Since the investigation and having received copies of the
police docket I
have been aware of all the witnesses against me and I have
and will not in
~-
Page 45
any way intimidate or influence such
witnesses.
193. I further refer the above Honourable Court to paragraphs 7 to
11 of my
founding affidavit on pp 582 to 590 of the record which sets out my
personal
particulars and background and pray that the above Honourable Court
take
same in consideration in considering this bail application.
194. I
humbly pray that the above Honourable Court grant my bail application on
new
facts.
DEPONENT
THUS SIGNED AND SWORN TO AT ON THIS DAY
OF 2012, THE
DEPONENT HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
HE/SHE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS
OF THIS
AFFIDAVIT, THAT IT IS BOTH TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF
HIS/HER
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THAT HE/SHE HAS NO OBJECTION
TO TAKING THE PRESCRIBED
OATH AND THAT THE PRESCRIBED OATH
WILL BE BINDING ON HIS/HER CONSCIENCE.

Culled from KayodeOgundamisi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Australian Billionaire To Build Another Titanic 12

Australian Billionaire To Build Another Titanic

PHOTO Of The Day; Abuja Lady Wears Transperent Leggy Showing Soaked Pad.