A former Governor of Delta State,
Chief James Onanefe Ibori, has dragged the United Kingdom to the European Court
of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, in a bid to quash his conviction by a
London court.
The attestation papers, filed in
this respect, were received by the European court on April 16, 2019.
The foundation of Ibori’s appeal,
according to the papers filed by his counsel, rests on his claim that Britain
disobeyed its own laws all in a rush to get him convicted.
His counsel argued that “this
application concerns an unusual provision of United Kingdom law: s17 of the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (‘RIPA’).
According to the former
governor’s counsel, “it prohibits any reference, in any proceedings, to an
intercepted communication or its contents- e.g. an intercepted phone call – in
circumstances in which its origin as an intercepted communication is disclosed
or could be inferred. The United Kingdom is virtually unique in having such a
provision: intercepted communications are used routinely as evidence in court
proceedings throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Ibori’s counsel alleged that the
“operation of Section 17 of RIPA, as applied in the highly unusual
circumstances of his case, resulted in a violation of Ibori’s rights pursuant
to Article 6 of ECHR”.
He further argued that this
actually is the crux of the matter, because Britain’s failure to obey its own
laws has rendered every other thing that followed, including his guilty plea
later, defective.
Ibori went on appeal after
pleading guilty. But his counsel said, in the appeal papers filed at the
European Court of Human Rights, that Ibori had pleaded guilty to criminal
offences but subsequently applied for permission to appeal his convictions in
light of the disclosure of new material.
According to his counsel, it is
this “new material” which surfaced later that Ibori is predicating this appeal
on.
The counsels argued that, “it was
a highly unusual note because it provided information, which could easily
identify the source of the new material on which the Applicant’s appeal was
based. However, in a reverse twist, such disclosure is prohibited in all court
proceedings by Section 17 of RIPA”.
In an effort to attempt to comply
with Section 17 of RIPA for the remainder of the hearing, the Court of Appeal
imposed ‘Ground Rules’ on the parties, which limited what the applicant’s
counsel could refer to in his submissions.
The applicant submitted to the
Court of Appeal – and submits in this application – that Section 17 of RIPA,
combined with the ‘Ground Rules’, prevented him from properly developing his
submissions before the Court of Appeal, adding that “as a result his appeal
hearing was unfair.”
This development, it was learnt,
is the major plank on which Ibori’s case rests.
The former governor appealed to
the EU Court of Appeal because a London Appeal Court had refused to interrogate
this submission and actually ruled that the issue of what is now known as “the
Wass Note” was a no-go area.
He alleged that Britain denied
him his rights to fair trial – which is recognised everywhere in the free
world.
His appeal was based on the
following issues: “That identified corrupt British Police Officers were
responsible for the conduct of the case against him. That they deliberately
withheld prosecution evidence, which had it been disclosed at the correct time
would have prevented any guilty pleas being entered. That the prosecution
failed to follow the legally required RIPA procedure as stipulated in British Law.”
He alleged that the Court of
Appeal ruled against him and went further to refuse him leave to bring an
appeal on the case they had just determined.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com