Fani-Kayode accuses EFCC of distorting facts

Former Minister of Aviation, Mr Femi Fani-Kayode, Thursday, accused Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and one of its

 Former Minister of Aviation, Mr Femi Fani-Kayode, Thursday, accused Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and one of its lawyers, Mr Festus Keyamo, of distorting the facts of the corruption charges against him before a Federal High Court, Lagos.

EFCC had petitioned the Chief Judge of the court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, accusing him (Fani-Kayode and his counsel) of attempting to decide the judge to hear the case.

Fani-Kayode, through his counsel, Mr Dele Martins, described the letter and subsequent publications on the letter as a distortion of facts of the case, which should be ignored.

Fani-Kayode said what he merely did was to ask the Federal High Court to take cognizance of the ruling of the Court of Appeal, which ordered that the case should go back to the original trial judge, Justice A. Mohammed, and not to start afresh with a new judge.

Justice Mohammed, first trial judge in the matter, was transferred to the Enugu division of the court, a development that led the case being reassigned to Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako.

Following the reassignment of the case, Fani-Kayode wrote the Chief Judge of the court, asking that the court should take cognizance of the ruling of the Court of Appeal, delivered on May 27, 2010.

The appellate court in the ruling, had ordered Justice Mohammed to continue with the case since trial had already commenced in his court.

“The report that Fani-kayode had sought to appoint his own judge in his own case with the EFCC is malicious, false and misleading.

“The position is simply that I asked the Federal High Court to take notice of the ruling of the Court of Appeal, which was delivered on May 27, 2010, in which the court ruled that the matter should go back to the original judge for continuation of the case and not for the matter to start de novo with a new judge.

“The Court of Appeal gave the ruling.  We have no interest in choosing the trial judge and neither do we have the power to do so. Our position as canvassed before the Federal High Court is that the former trial judge should continue with the case since witnesses had been called and not to start afresh,” he added.