Shehu Sani, a former senator who represented Kaduna central, says he saved former President Olusegun Obasanjo from being assaulted by inmates of the Kirikiri Maximum Security prison in 1995.

The former senator spoke during a lecture in Abuja on Thursday.

Obasanjo was Nigeria’s head of state from 1976 to 1979. He returned as civilian president in 1999 and handed over the reins of power in 2007.

Sani was among pro-democracy activists and dissidents who were rounded up and jailed by the military junta led by Sani Abacha, who was president from 1993 to 1998.

Obasanjo was arrested in 1995 for allegedly plotting a coup and was jailed.

‘THEY INSULTED OBASANJO’

Recounting events from the era, Sani said himself, Shehu Musa Yar’Adua and Obasanjo were moved to Kirikiri prison after their arrests.

He said “armed robbers” in prison began “shouting and insulting” the former president when they saw him.

Sani added that he “talked to the inmates to calm down, that no matter their grievances with Obasanjo, he was now an inmate”.

“In 1995, a team of soldiers, policemen and DSS visited my house in Kaduna. It was a journey that began and lasted for four years,” he said.

“I was picked up from Kaduna and brought to Lagos with the late General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua. From the airport, we were led to the DSS headquarters, where we met President Olusegun Obasanjo.

“Unfairly from the soldiers, they handcuffed me but did not do so for Obasanjo or Yar’Adua. Obasanjo looked at me and asked me who I was and if I had stolen something for them to have handcuffed me. I told him I was an activist.

“I was then the deputy chairman of the Campaign for Democracy. We were taken to Kirikiri Maximum Prison. We stayed there without anybody saying anything to us. When we arrived at Kirikiri, we were given a blanket and a plate of food.

“We were then allocated our cells. When the armed robbers there saw Obasanjo, they started shouting and insulting him.

“Naturally, for those of us who were human rights activists, we were popular with inmates. I told him, ‘You are a commander outside, but this is where I command’. I then I talked to the inmates to calm down, that no matter their grievances with Obasanjo, he was now an inmate.

“I got 15 years, Obasanjo got 15 years, Yar’Adua got life imprisonment. Those of us from the north were sent to southern prisons and those from the south were sent to northern prisons. That was how I found myself in Port Harcourt prison.

“I was in Port Harcourt prison when Ken Saro-Wiwa was brought in and hanged. I could see them from the window.”

‘ACTIVISTS MADE A MISTAKE IN 1998’

Sani added that pro-democracy activists of the era made a mistake by not putting themselves forward for political leadership as the military prepared to hand over power to civilians after Abacha’s death.

“Abdulsalami Abubakar, military head of state, invited all of us who fought for democracy, that he was going to hand over power to a democratically elected government and that he wanted all of us — the freedom fighters — to come together and take over power,” he said.

“At that very time, Gani Fawehinmi opposed it. Three times, Abubakar invited us. We even refused to answer his calls. Meanwhile, the politicians who were not invited were knocking on his door.

“After we decided to listen to him, we came and sat down. What do we do? After the struggle, the ANC in South Africa took over political power. But after our struggle, in 1998/1999 we made a fundamental mistake and said we were not going to cooperate with the military.

“Mike Ozekhome was one of those who said we should not join politics. Gani opposed as well, Falana opposed, Olisa Agbakoba… all opposed.

“It was Bola Tinubu who said ‘if we don’t get in, who is going to be there?’ By the time we all agreed to join politics, politicians had taken over all positions.

“Ozekhome tried to be governor of Edo state, he couldn’t; Olisa tried to be president, he couldn’t; Gani tried to be president, he couldn’t; Falana tried to be governor of Ekiti, he couldn’t; I tried to be governor of Kaduna — but the spaces had all been taken over.”

The cases challenging the defection of the 25 State lawmakers in Rivers State from the People’s Democratic Party, PDP to the All Progressives Congress, APC, have been transferred.

The case was transferred from Federal High Court 4, Port Harcourt, presided over by Justice Steven Dalyop Pam, to court two controlled by Justice E. O. Obele.

However, there was confusion yesterday among journalists covering the court proceedings and some of the lawyers in the matter as they got to the court, Friday morning, to discover that the cases have been transferred to a different court.

The lawyers and journalists who were stocked at court four could only realise that the matters have been moved when the notable Senior Advocates of Nigeria in the matter who had arrived the court premises could not be found in court four.

On approaching the court clerk after over an hour of resumption of court sitting, it was discovered that the matter was transferred Thursday to the new court.

This transfer came following a petition by a defendant in matter, Hon. Martins Amaewhule, to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John Tsoho, demanding that the cases against him be transferred to another court.

The cases are one instituted by BOOT Party and others as plaintiffs in suit number FHC/PHC/269/2024 and another by Civil Society Organsiation in the state against Amaewhule and other, all on the defection of the defendants to the APC.

When the court had resumed on Monday for hearing, the court was confronted with a petition signed by Martin Amaewhule addressed to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John Tsoho, seeking the case to be reassigned to another court.

The Presiding Judge, Justice Steven Dalyop Pam, who read the petition in the open court, had noted that the petitioner, Amaewhule, was praying the CJ of the High Court, to stop the hearing process following the petition.

When the petition was read, Counsel for the plaintiff, BOOT Party, Mr. Reuben Wanogho, had informed the court that the petition was aimed at arresting the ongoing case and urged the court to discountenance it.

But, Counsel for the 1st to 25th Defendants in the suit, Ferdinand Orbi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, denied knowledge of the petition by his client, prayed the court to adhere to the petition and stop further proceeding if the letter was addressed to the CJ of the court.

However, the presiding judge, Pam, noted that in the first instance the petitioner (Amaewhule) has no motion, counter affidavit before him and that he is not yet known in the case.

Pam in his ruling had noted that the petitioner has not copied his petition on the plaintiffs, noting the court would have no other option than discountenance the petition and move on with hearing of motions for joinder.

Yahaya Bello, immediate past governor of Kogi State,  who is facing a 19-count charge, has adduced reasons the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, should prosecute him in Kogi.

The former governor in a letter he wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, said it would be legally wrong for the anti-graft agency to subject him to a trial in Abuja when the offence he allegedly committed was in Kogi state.

In the letter written through his team of lawyers, led by Mr Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, Bello, maintained that only the Lokoja Division of the high court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the allegations against him.

“All the funds which the complainant alleged to have been laundered by the defendant are monies of the government of Kogi State whose state capital is in Lokoja.

“All the bank accounts from which the said monies are stated to be laundered from as shown in the proof of evidence are domiciled with the branches of the respective banks in Lokoja, Kogi State.

“Thus, the law is settled that generally, the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction is one all over the federation, the court is divided into judicial divisions and where a crime is committed in any of the divisions, criminal proceedings, thereof, must be initiated and prosecuted in that very judicial division of the Federal High Court where the act or omission or the elements of the offence were allegedly committed.

“It is pertinent to note that the Defendant was governor of Kogi State, the charges and the proof of evidence indicate criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation and money laundering in respect of the statutory funds of Kogi State.

“These are the alleged predicate offences and all their elements took place in Kogi State, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Lokoja Judicial Division.

“We humbly urge my Lord, to transfer the subject charge to the Lokoja Division of the Federal High Court which is the Division with the territorial jurisdiction to try the case,” the letter read.

Though the matter was originally slated for the defendant to enter his plea to the charge, he was not, however, present in court when the case was called up.

A lawyer, Mr. Adeola Adedipe, SAN, who announced an appearance for him, drew the attention of trial Justice Emeka Nwite to the letter his client wrote to the CJ on June 13.

He said the CJ had already asked EFCC’s lawyer to respond to the request for the case file to be transferred to Kogi.

“My lord, as of this morning, I am not aware whether there has been a response by the prosecution team in compliance with the directive of the CJ.

“We are also not in receipt of any decision that has been made on this request by the CJ. I am also aware that this administrative directive of the CJ has been formally communicated to this court.

“We have filed an affidavit of fact wherein we attached two documents referencing the details that I have just highlighted.

“My duty is first to the court. As of the moment, I am not urging anything from the court, but just to present the facts as they are,” Adedipe, SAN, added.

On his part, the EFCC, through its counsel, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, urged the court to cite the two senior lawyers that had appeared for the defendant in the matter for contempt.

The prosecution counsel noted that the lawyers had on three occasions, made an undertaking before the court to produce their client for his trial.

He argued that their failure to make the defendant available before the court, in line with the undertaking, amounted to a breach of the rules of professional conduct.

Pinheiro, SAN, argued that Order 31(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for legal practitioners stipulated that any lawyer who failed to comply with an undertaking he made before a court, aside from being in contempt, was automatically guilty of misconduct.

“My lord, our application is that since one of the lawyers is present in court, he should be moved to the dock and dealt with summarily. That is what the law says and this will help to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.

“For five consecutive sittings, the defendant refused to make himself available for his trial and his lawyers have continued to use all forms of chicanery to frustrate his arraignment.

“If this sort of conduct is not punished, then we will be sliding to a situation that will be worse than the Animal Farm.

“The world is watching. Punishing these senior lawyers will send a very clear message,” EFCC’s lawyer added.

Following the development, Adedipe, SAN, applied to withdraw his appearance for the defendant.
Adedipe told the court that he was not Bello’s lead counsel, even as he denied making any undertaking to secure his presence for the trial.

“My lord, the narration by the prosecution counsel is very untrue and it is accentuated by malice. I am not the lead counsel in this matter.

“What the learned prosecution counsel has tried to do was to pitch my person against this court,” he insisted.

He said his team had earlier notified the court that it was not aware of the whereabouts of the former governor.

According to him, they had enlisted the help of “some elders” to persuade the former governor to appear before the court.

He said in light of the turn the case had taken, he had no option but to activate the provision of section 349(8) of ACJA, 2015, by withdrawing his appearance for the defendant.

However, EFCC’s counsel maintained that it was too late for the defence lawyer to pull out of the case, saying “My lord, he should be used to set an example that this is not a lottery game. His request to withdraw is only an afterthought and it should not be countenanced by this court. I urge your lordship to invite him to the dock immediately.”

After he had listened to both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till July 17.

The court ordered the two lawyers representing the defendant to ensure they attended the sitting.

Bello is facing a charge bordering on his alleged complicity in money laundering, breach of trust and misappropriation of public funds to the tune of about N80.2 billion.

EFCC alleged that he alongside his nephew Ali Bello and two others, Dauda Suleiman and Abdulsalam Hudu, were complicitly involved in money laundering.

Though the ex-Kogi governor previously failed to appear before the court for his arraignment, however, he briefed his lawyers to file an application to set aside an arrest warrant that was issued against him on April 17, as well as to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to try him.