Rickey Tarfa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has told a federal high court in Lagos that the controversial N225,000 was paid into the account of Muhammed Yunusa, his former employee, and not that of Justice Mahmud Yunusa.
In February, operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested Tarfa for allegedly shielding two of his clients from justice.
The anti-graft agency, which had access to his phones after the arrest, alleged that it obtained information which showed that Tarfa paid the money into an account in Access Bank belonging to the judge.
But Tarfa instituted a N2. 5 billion enforcement rights suit against the anti-corruption agency and Ibrahim Magu, its chairman.
However, Tarfa’s former employee presented an affidavit in court to claim that he was the person whom the lawyer paid the money to.
Bolaji Ayorinde, Tarfa’s lead counsel, asked the court to allow him present the new evidence on the issue.
But EFCC represented by Wahab Shittu, its counsel, opposed the request.
In his ruling, Idris agreed with Tarfa saying, “in the interest of justice a party should be allowed to bring any evidence or material that would aid his case”.
In February, operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested Tarfa for allegedly shielding two of his clients from justice.
The anti-graft agency, which had access to his phones after the arrest, alleged that it obtained information which showed that Tarfa paid the money into an account in Access Bank belonging to the judge.
But Tarfa instituted a N2. 5 billion enforcement rights suit against the anti-corruption agency and Ibrahim Magu, its chairman.
However, Tarfa’s former employee presented an affidavit in court to claim that he was the person whom the lawyer paid the money to.
Bolaji Ayorinde, Tarfa’s lead counsel, asked the court to allow him present the new evidence on the issue.
But EFCC represented by Wahab Shittu, its counsel, opposed the request.
In his ruling, Idris agreed with Tarfa saying, “in the interest of justice a party should be allowed to bring any evidence or material that would aid his case”.
No comments:
Post a Comment