Drama in UK Court over N6.3b Assets of Ibori’s Mistress

The language was acerbic; tempers flared, somewhat. Lawyers de­ployed harsh words against each other.

That was the hallmark of the hearing at Courtroom 8 of the Southwark Crown Court on Tuesday in Lon­don, the United Kingdom.

At issue was the hearing into the planned confisca­tion of assets worth N6.3 billion (£21 million) traced to Udoamaka Onuigbo, a suspected mistress of for­mer Delta State Governor, James Onanefe Ibori, who is currently serving time in a UK jail for money laundering.

On Monday, the court began hear­ing into a N26.7 billion (£89m) as­sets of the former Governor. The matter has been adjourned to June 2016, raising fears that he might not be released from UK jail soon.

Lawyers representing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Onuigbo, nearly traded insults at the Court on Tuesday, before judge Anthony Pitts adjourned her N6.3 billion (£21 million) confiscation of assets hearing till December 7.

The Crown prosecutor, Sasha Wass, described the Onuigbo case as “easy, simple and easily digest­ible.” He added that it was “ridic­ulous” for the other side not to be ready to proceed if given 10 days or a little more.

The defence referred to the Crown Prosecutor as “aggres­sive,” after both sides terminated a meeting to resolve their differ­ences.

Tempers gradually rose as Wass made a case for the hearing to begin next Monday, while Mr Feder for Onuigbo, maintained the same position – that his client wanted to be present in court -he took on Monday, when Ibori’s case was heard and subsequently ad­journed till next year.

Wass drew the first blood when she told the court that Onuigbo’s part in the Ibori case was nar­row, adding that her case was not “live” like those of Ibori and Brandresh Gohil.

She added that Onuigbo doesn’t need to be physically present in Court, as arrangements had been made for her – on Monday – to give her evidence through video link at the DFID’s office in Abuja from Monday, next week.

On his part, Feder insisted on fighting his client’s corner and following her wishes to the let­ter. Leaning heavily on the Court of Appeal’s ruling that ordered Southwark Crown Court to re­assess her “realisable benefits” and the other strand of the upper court’s ruling that Judge Hardy got it wrong a few years ago when he ruled that Onuigbo had bene­fits to the tune of £21m, he argued that with almost 50 years experi­ence on the bench, he knew that going through the hearing bundle of about 13,000 pages to prepare his case was not going to be easy as the Crown prosecutor was making it.

Also, he could not prepare a good defence within a couple of days and much less going against the wish of his client. He also ar­gued that a particular document which the Economic and Finan­cial Crimes Commission (EFCC) raided in the business address of Onuigbo was very crucial to her defence and they needed the Crown to make it available .

But Wass insisted: “We cannot see her case taking more than three days. What we invite your honour to say is that the mat­ter can proceed. There is no rea­son that Mrs Onuigbo’s hearing should be attached to Mr Ibori and Gohil.”

She equally impressed it on the judge to order the case to proceed and use part of the six weeks ini­tially reserved for the entire Ibori hearing.

Wass told the court further that adjourning the case would be a waste of public money.

However, Feder continually sang a different and opposing tune. “The idea of video link in Abuja doesn’t excite us,” he said, adding that the “whole issue of benefits” should be dealt with “thoroughly.”

“Benefits as an English word and benefits in confiscation are two different things,” he said.

Even though Pitts initially rea­soned along with Wass, saying that “it doesn’t seem to me it must be joined with the other two next year,” and that “it is something we can do much more before,” Feder wouldn’t shift ground. He told the judge: “I hear what your honour says, but the idea of doing it via video link,” just doesn’t ex­cite them still.

The judge thought there could be a sort of compromise, so he rose shortly and asked both sides to discuss, particularly with the Crown offering to direct the de­fence to the relevant and “nar­row” side of the entire evidence.

The meeting didn’t last for up to thirty minutes, as the solicitors accused each other. Feder told the judge afterwards: “The meeting wasn’t very fruitful. I have experi­enced an aggressive attitude from my learned friend, who said I’m not a proper barrister and based on that, I closed the matter.” He described what Wass said as “nonsensical”.

Having also heard from Wass, Pitts concluded that: “I need to adjourn this case and list it on De­cember 7” in order “to allow the defence to familiarise themselves or withdraw.”