Salami asks NJC to dismiss MTN call logs

Court of Appeal President Isa Salami has told a National Judicial Council (NJC) panel that the MTN call logs attached to some petitions against him were fabricated.

Justice Salami has closed his case before the panel raised by NJC on the rift between him and Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Aloysius Katsina-Alu, who said the verdict of the Court of Appeal on the Sokoto governorship election dispute never leaked.

These are contained in the final written address filed by Justice Salami’s counsel, Lateef Fagebmi (SAN), Ricky Tarfa (SAN), Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), Emeka Ngige (SAN) and O.A. Adelodun (SAN).
Former Ekiti State Governor Segun Oni presented the call logs to the panel, in a bid to prove that the Appeal Court was compromised in sacking him from office.

According to Oni and Sunday Ojo-Williams, there were strange calls between Justice Salami, some politicians and lawyers to influence the judgment of the Appeal Court on Ekiti and Osun governorship election petitions.

Other allegations against Justice Salami are:
*Treatment of Sokoto matter/purported leakage of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on governorship election petition; and
*Ex-Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola’s claim of Justice Salami being a member of the Court of Appeal’s panel on Osun governorship election petition and alleged bias over how Justice Salami constituted panels on election petitions.

Justice Salami denied all the allegations and asked the NJC panel to discountenance the petitioners’ submissions.

He said Oni and Ojo-Williams’ call logs allegations were fabricated, adding that a MTN official admitted that the logs did not emanate from the company.

The address reads in part:  “It is pertinent to state that the Petition of Engineer Segun Oni was fundamentally based on the Call Log purportedly obtained from Network Provider MTN Telecommunications which purported to show communications between the PCA and certain lawyers in the course of the election petition appeals in Ekiti and Osun states.

“However, in the course of the presentation of the case of the petitioners, this foundation of the petition was completely knocked off by evidence which became available to the Panel. The authenticity of the call logs “Exhibits 4 and 5” that were annexed to the petition was shown to be substantially flawed.

“Before going any further, we wish to state that the petitioner did not tender any letter requesting MTN Telecommunications to oblige them with the aforementioned call logs. The two Exhibits were not procured from proper custody, the name or logo of the service provider is not inscribed on it, it was not certified at all, there is no serial number on it and there was no endorsement and/ or a covering or forwarding letter.

“The petitioner in his petition and during his oral testimony did not state the source it came from as MTN, the mobile telecommunication company that was purportedly claimed to have produced the call logs has denied the release of the call logs in numerous publication amongst which was the publication in The Nation newspaper of 25 February, 2011 admitted as Exhibit 19 where they stated that
“The procedure for the release of information pertaining to calls or data transmitted on our network is rigorous and we will only release customer information that has been authorised by MTN Executive management, acting further to a court order or a demand by security agencies and by the individual owner of the phone line. Such demands are made with respect to specific phone number and not individual customer names”.

“This fact was buttressed by the Senior Manager Commercial Legal in the Corporate Service Division of MTN, Mr. Rotimi Odusola, when he gave evidence before this panel on the 9th June, 2011. The question begging for answer at this stage is:
“Did the petitioner obtain a court order from a competent court ordering MTN to release the call logs to the Petitioner?

“Did the petitioner write to any law enforcement agency to apply for the call logs on their behalf?

“Is the petitioner the owner of the phone lines he claimed to be in the call logs?

“The answers to all these questions are in the negative as there is no evidence before this panel that shows or points to how these call logs attached to the petition were obtained by the petitioner.

“Therefore, we urge my Lords to discountenance the content of the call logs as they are not authentic call logs from MTN Telecommunications but a fabrication by the petitioner and his accolade.
“Also, the Senior Manager, Commercial/Legal in the Corporate Service Division of MTN, Mr. Rotimi Odusola, denies the call logs that were annexed to the petition by the petitioner on the ground that MTN does not produce call logs on A3 papers.

“My Lords, this testimony of a senior ranking officer of MTN, the network provider from whom the call logs were purportedly obtained, is of crucial importance to the determination of this petition. In his testimony, Mr. Odusola categorically and unambiguously stated that the ‘call logs did not emanate from MTN as MTN do not produce call logs on A3 papers’.

“At the hearing of 19th May,2011, Mr. Theophilous Ndubuisi Onyie, a representative of the office of the National Security Adviser (SAN), testified before this panel wherein he gave testimony concerning the source of the content of the flash drive that he forwarded to the secretary of this panel.

“A point worthy of note here is the fact that during cross examination, Mr. Onyie was unable to tender the request letter they wrote to MTN or a forwarding or covering letter from MTN to support the authenticity of the content of what the office of the National Security Adviser received from MTN via e- mail.

“Under cross examination wherein he stated his experience and qualification, he admitted that an e-copy (electronic copy) of a document is not safe and that it is prone to alteration. He also admitted that he did not preview the content of the document before he forwarded it to the Secretary of this panel.

“My lords, we urge this Honourable tribunal to discountenance the bundle of documents printed out from the flash drive received by the secretary of this panel from the office of the National Security Adviser as the representative of the National Security Adviser himself has admitted that the flash he gave out was not tamper proof and is very capable of being altered to suit certain clandestine purposes and smear campaigns. We urge my lords to so hold.

“It is also noteworthy to state here that the credibility of the expert witness that was called by the petitioner is highly unreliable as he does not possess the necessary qualifications in telecommunications to give an expert opinion on a field that he lacks requisite knowledge in.  Where an expert is summoned to testify in relation to a particular field, such an expert must give his qualification to show his special skill in the relevant field. See MELWANI V CHANHIRA CORP. (1995) 6NWLR (pt 402) at 438.

“Mr. Ademola Oyinlola (the expert witness called by the petitioners), in examination-in-chief claimed to have graduated from the University of Ife in 1993 with a BSC in Engineering Geology, but, however, under cross- examination, he said he obtained BSC Geology and not Engineering Geology. Under cross examination he said that he had never worked with any of the communication outfit both in Nigeria and outside the country and/or has he ever worked on call logs before.

“Furthermore, he claimed to be a Director of an IT firm, Ivory Solutions Ltd, but under cross-examinations, it was proved that he lied on oath as he was subsequently shown not to be a Director of the company nor any IT related company.

“We submit that it is trite that an expert is a person who is specifically skilled in the field in which he is giving evidence. An expert is a witness in a case who is summoned to give an opinion evidence on a fact or fact in issue with in the area of his expertise or specialty. The witness must have made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein. SEE. OGIALE v SHELL PET.DEV.CO. (NIG) LTD (1997) 1NWLR (pt480) AT 148.

“In this case, the supposed expert witness, which the petitioner brought, is a person who has no experience whatsoever in IT Communications and is a graduate of Engineering being brought to testify as an expert in IT communications. Further, he neither has any practical experience in IT nor has worked in any of the telecommunications companies in Nigeria or abroad. Rather, he is the Managing Director of a Bureau De Change, a staunch member of the PDP and a nephew of one of the petitioners.

“In the light of these glaring facts, we humbly urge this panel to disregard, discard and discountenance his testimony as he does not qualify as an ‘expert’ and his testimony is tainted, seeing that he lied under oath, is a member of PDP and a nephew of one of the petitioners.

On Oyinlola’s petition, the counsel said: “The first fact that should be noted here, is that Justice Salami was not a member of the panel of justices that sat and heard the Osun State governorship election petition appeal.

“The petition of Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola dated 2nd December, 2010 contained on pages 672—875 volume 2 of the working papers is outside the mandate of this panel and it was duly withdrawn by the petitioner. We urge this panel to disregard the petition.

“The second petition by Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola dated 7th February, 2011 is contained on page 648-652 volume 2 of the working papers also goes to no issue.”

On the alleged leakage of the Court of Appeal judgment on Sokoto governorship election petition, Justice Salami said there was nothing like that.
He said those who made the allegations could not back up their claims before the panel.

He added: “In dealing with this issue of leakage, it is pertinent to state that only two petitions were relied upon by the Hon. CJN in issuing his query to the PCA. As earlier mentioned, the two petitions are those of Yahaya Mahmood, Esq. and Alfred N. Agu, Esq. In none of these petitions is the issue of leakage of judgment mentioned. One is, therefore, at a loss as to how the Hon. CJN came about the issue of leakage of the judgment as it was not mentioned in the petitions and up to this moment, no copy of the judgment said to have leaked has been seen nor brought before this panel.

“Whatever the situation, the deponent to the affidavit of 12th February, 2010, Usman Buhari, never showed up to own, adopt nor was he cross-examined on it. In any event the person who allegedly informed the leakage of the judgment of Sokoto appeal panel – Hon. Justice Dattijo Muhammed, gave evidence which completely denied the content of the said affidavit or any conversation with the deponent.

“Still on this issue of leakage of judgment, it is relevant to recall the evidence of Hon. Justice Musdapher, J.S.C. before this panel. Although the Hon. Justice Musdapher, the deposition of paragraph 7(iv) of the CJN affidavit, he limited his admission to just being told by the CJN about the leakage of the judgment. He said it categorically that the petitions were not shown to him.

“Yahaya Mahmood, Esq., in his evidence, gave the PCA a clean bill of health on the issue of leakage when he said that he did not discuss the issue of leakage with the PCA. If he did not, as he himself has admitted, he also did not put it in his petitions.”

Regarding his allegation that the CJN allegedly wanted him to influence the judgment of the Court of Appeal on Sokoto Governorship Election Petition, Justice Salami said he stood by his allegation.

He said: “On the issue of the CJN directing the PCA to deliver judgment in favour of one of the parties, the response of Hon. Justice Musdapher JSC was that he could not recollect.

“That, of course, is different from saying that it did not         happen, and we submit that he may not recollect because probably the    discussion did not occur in his presence. From the Record of Proceedings of this panel, Hon. Justice Musdapher is quoted as saying- ‘The issue of the Chief Justice of Nigeria asking the President, Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal was not discussed in my presence…’
“This situation, therefore, shows that as at 8th February, 2010 when the CJN discussed with the PCA, no petition had emerged against the leakage of the judgment about to be delivered in the Sokoto governorship appeal. Paragraphs 4(I – vi) of the affidavit of the PCA on 31st March 2011 remained uncontroverted. The allegation has to do with the instruction from the CJN to the PCA directing the latter to deal with the Sokoto appeal panel in a particular way, in favour of the incumbent Governor. Somehow, Hon. Justice Musdapher only said that this issue was not discussed in his presence.

“It is instructive to note that the Hon. CJN has not and did not file a counter affidavit to the allegations made by the PCA that he was asked by the Hon. CJN to dismiss the appeal in the Sokoto matter. Hon. Justice Musdapher, in his testimony, only mentioned that the discussions were not in his presence and not that the Hon. CJN did not say it.”
The counsel asked the panel to dismiss the petitions against Justice Salami.
“We urge this Honourable panel to dismiss all the petitions and vindicate Justice Salami of all the allegations against him,” they said.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Linkedin
• Pinterest

Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday


Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users

You Might Also Like

« PREV

NEXT »