EFCC opposes Rickey Tarfa”s “no case submission”

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday filed a counter-affidavit opposing a no-case submission filed by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Rickey Tarfa. The anti-graft agency arraigned Tarfa on March 10, last year, on a 27-count charge which was amended to 26 counts. He was accused of wilful obstruction of authorised EFCC […]

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday filed a counter-affidavit opposing a no-case submission filed by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Rickey Tarfa.

The anti-graft agency arraigned Tarfa on March 10, last year, on a 27-count charge which was amended to 26 counts.

He was accused of wilful obstruction of authorised EFCC officials, refusal to declare assets and giving false information to a public officer.

It was also alleged, among others, that Tarfa offered N5.3million gratification to Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court, Lagos, in order to compromise the judge.

The trial began in March last year before Justice Adedayo Akintoye of the Lagos State High Court, Igbosere.

At the court today, EFCC called five witnesses in for the trial and tendered 20 exhibits.

Tarfa filed a no-case submission, contending that EFCC did not sufficiently prove the case to warrant him opening his defence.

He urged the court to dismiss the charge and discharge him on the basis that he has no-case to answer.

But, EFCC, in the counter-affidavit deposed to by an operative, Zakari Usman, said the prosecution made out a prima-facie (evident) case against Tarfa based on witness testimonies and tendered exhibits.

“The evidence of the prosecution witness is strong and un-discredited. This Honourable Court can rely on it to safely convict the applicant.

“The applicant has a case to answer in view of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution in the course of the applicant’s trial,” Usman said.

EFCC said in view of the evidence led by the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, Tarfa ought to be called upon to open his defence.

The commission urged the court to dismiss the lawyer’s application that he be discharged and acquitted.

The prosecution added that the charge was not an abuse of prosecutorial powers.