I didn’t bribe Justice Mohammed – Tarfa

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ricky Tarfa has been arraigned by the EFCC before the Lagos High Court.

“That the applicant did not on 7th January 2014 bribe Justice M.N Yunusa with the sum of N225,000 or any other sum at all”.

However, Tarfa speaking through Olusegun Odubela, SAN, said that the money in question was a donation from a committee of friends of the judge including him, to support the judge for the burial of his late father-in-law in Maiduguri since they could not be there physically.

Tarfa’s position was contained in an affidavit he swore to on the issue, which came from charges levelled against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

In an affidavit filed on Friday before the court and deposed to by the head of his chambers, John Odubela- the senior lawyer admitted that he forwarded N225,000 to Justice Yunusa but however, stated that the money was not a bribe.

The EFCC arraigned Mr. Tarfa before the High Court in Lagos last week for obstructing them from arresting Gnanhooue Sourou and Nazaire Odeste, who of his clients.

The senior lawyer had filed a fundamental right suit against the EFCC over his alleged arrest and detention.

The EFCC also stated that from its investigations, ‎ Mr. Tarfa’s law firm, Rickey Tarfa & Co. with Access Bank Account with account no. 0000964760 paid N225,000 into Justice Yunusa’s bank account.

In addition to seeking N2.5 billion as damages, Mr. Tarfa is also seeking a public apology from the EFCC for his alleged arrest and detention.

“That I know as a fact that on April 30, 2015, the applicant attended the launching (presentation) of a book in honour of Justice Ibrahim Auta, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court at Abuja, in company with Chief Igbinedion, the chief launcher and that on that occasion, the applicant introduced Chief Igbinedion to judges and senior lawyers who attended the programme”.

The EFCC, through its lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, however urged the court to dismiss Tarfa’s suit with a “substantive punitive cost for lacking in merit”. “But in this case, it is clear that the respondents were carrying out their statutory duty”.

After listening to both parties Justice Idris adjourned the matter till February 29, for judgment.