The bitter legal tussle over the recalculation of the actual amount of accrued benefits between crown prosecutors and the defence team of Udoamaka Onuigbo, mistress of former Delta State governor, Chief James Ibori, will resume with a pre-hearing at the Southwark Crown Court on Thursday.
Udoamaka , who’s currently in Nigeria, after serving her jail term in Her Majesty’s prison, was convicted on the premise that she benefitted to the tune of £21 million as a result of being one of the conduits through which Ibori siphoned looted funds from the oil rich state.
But she took her case to the Court of Appeal, where it was ruled that the benefits that accrued to her were overstated, and therefore must be recalculated.
Although the full hearing to determine the exact amount of benefits is to begin on December 7, the reason for Thursday’s sitting is to ensure that the case does not suffer any delays as it did in April. It is to also know whether Onuigo’s request to be present at the hearing in December has been properly addressed and sorted. In April, the atmosphere was highly charged and both sides of the bench fired insults at each other a day after Ibori’s confiscation of assets hearing was postponed.
That day, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Udoamaka’s counsel called each other names inside courtroom 8, before judge Anthony Pitts adjourned hearing till December.
It all started when the lead Crown prosecutor described the case as “easy , simple and easily digestible,” and “ridiculous” for the other side not to be ready to proceed if given 10 days or a little more. The defence later referred to her behaviour as “aggressive,” after both sides terminated a meeting which was to resolve their differences.
Tempers gradually rose as the Crown prosecutor, Sasha Wass, made a case for the hearing to begin the following week, while Mr. Feder for Onuigbo, reiterated their position that his client wanted to be present in court.
Wass drew the first blood when she told the court that not only is Onuigbo’s part in the Ibori case narrow, besides, her case is not live like those of Ibori and Brandresh Gohil, adding that Onuigbo didn’t need to be physically present in Court as arrangements had been made for her to give her evidence through video link at the DFID’s ( Department for International Development) office in Abuja the following Monday.
On his part, Feder insisted on fighting his client’s corner and following her wishes to the letter. Leaning heavily on the Court of Appeal’s ruling that ordered Southwark Crown Court to reassess her “realisable benefits” and the other strand of the upper court’s ruling that Judge Hardy got it wrong a few years ago when he ruled that Onuigbo had benefits to the tune of £21m, he argued that with almost 50 years experience on the bench, he knew that going through the hearing bundle of about 13,000 pages to prepare his case was not going to be easy as the Crown prosecutor was making it. Also, he argued that he could not prepare a good defence within a couple of days and much less, going against the wish of his client. He also argued that a particular document which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission , EFCC raided in the business address of Onuigbo was very crucial to her defence and they needed the Crown to make it available.
But Wass insisted: “We cannot see her case taking more than three days. What we invite your honour to say is that the matter can proceed. There is no reason that Mrs Onuigbo’s hearing should be attached to Mr Ibori and Gohil.”
She equally urged the judge to order the case to proceed and use part of the six weeks initially reserved for the entire Ibori hearing. Wass told the court further that adjourning the case would be a waste of public money.
However, Feder continually sang a different and opposing tune. “The idea of video link in Abuja doesn’t excite us.” He added that not only should the “whole issue of benefits” be dealt with “thoroughly,” he went further to give the reasons. “Benefits as an English word and benefits in confiscation are two different things.” Even though Pitts initially reasoned along with Wass, saying that “it doesn’t seem to me it must be joined with the other two next year, ” and that ” it is something we can do much more before,” Feder didn’t shift ground. He told the judge, “I hear what your honour says, but the idea of doing it via video link,” just doesn’t excite us by any stretch not the imagination.
It was then that the judge thought there could be a sort of compromise, so he rose shortly and asked both sides to discuss, particularly with the Crown offering to direct the defence to the relevant and “narrow ” side of the entire evidence bundle.
However, the meeting didn’t last for up to 30 minutes, as the solicitors tore at each other. Feder told the judge afterwards, “the meeting wasn’t very fruitful. I have experienced an aggressive attitude from my learned friend, who said I’m not a proper barrister and based on that, I closed the matter.”
He described what Wass said as “nonsensical.”
Having also heard from Wass, Pitts concluded: ” I need to adjourn this case and list it on December 7,..” in order ” to allow the defence to familiarise themselves or withdraw.”
On that day in April, all sides agreed that a pre-hearing in September was necessary, so as to know and prevent any barriers to the December hearing.
Daily Times
