Sun, 27 Jul 2025

Tompolo

Court Renews Order for Tompolo’s Arrest
 
By:
Tue, 9 Feb 2016   ||   Nigeria,
 

Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Lagos, monday renewed his earlier order for the arrest of a former Niger Delta militant, Government Ekpemupolo (aka Tompolo).

While ruling on an application challenging the substituted service of a 40-count criminal charge against the accused, Justice Buba ordered security agencies in the country to compel the ex-militant to appear in court.

Tompolo was charged for allegedly stealing N13 billion belonging to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The commission had filed a 40-count charge against him and nine others on January 11.

Those charged alongside Tompolo are: Patrick Akpobolokemi, Global West Vessel, Odimiri Electrical Limited Kime Engozu. Boloboere Limited, Rex Elem, Destre Limited, Gregory Mbonu and Captain Warrendi Enisuoh.

When the case came up yesterday, Mr. Festus Keyamo announced his appearance as a prosecutor for the EFCC, while Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) announced appearance as a counsel to Tompolo.

Oyetibo then informed the court of an application filed on January 27 on behalf of Tompolo, challenging the service of the charge based on a defect in the address.

The prosecutor, however, opposed the application on the grounds that by the provisions of section 96 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, such application cannot be adjourned for hearing.

Commenting on the issue, Justice Buba urged counsel not to waste the time of the court on mere technicalities.

He said the whole essence of substituted service was to bring to the attention of the accused that a charge had been preferred against him.

The judge added that regardless of however the service was effected, if the accused became aware of it, then the purpose of service had been fulfilled.

Buba however, urged the accused counsel to move his application.
Adopting his written address as his argument on the issue, Oyetibo argued that his application does not attack the competence of the charge but rather, service of the charge.
He said the charge was effected in Agbanu St, instead of Agbamu St, adding that the residence of the accused in Warri has a black gate but that service was effected on a residence with see-through gates.

Oyetibo therefore, urged the court to hold, that service of the charge was not properly effected on the first accused.

Ruling on the application, Buba dismissed the application and ordered Tompolo to appear in court.

Buba held that: “The entire gamut of this application is for the court to set aside the order granting substituted service of the charge.

“The first defendant missed the point completely; the law is that anybody like the EFCC has the power to arrest anyone if it has reasonable belief that such person has committed an offence.

“On January 12 when the application for substituted service was moved, one of the averment was that the applicant was invited by the EFCC to answer to some allegations, but up till today he has not deemed it fit to honour the invitation.

“It is very clear that the order for substituted service is more than justified against a man who has refused to honour lawful invitation by the EFCC.

“Not only is the accused aware of the charge but has further briefed counsel representing him, who on his behalf, demanded all processes filed.

“Therefore, all the authorities cited in this issue are with respect, misconceived: whether served by substituted means or not, the accused is aware of the charge.

“The application challenging service has misconceived same and is hereby dismissed.

“The order for arrest still subsists; all authorities in Nigeria are hereby further ordered to ensure that the order of this court for the arrest of Ekpemupolo a.k.a Tompolo is carried out to the latter.”

The judge had on January 12 granted an order to effect service of a summons and criminal charge on the accused.

In the charge, the accused were alleged to have conspired to convert and steal the said sum which is the property of the NIMASA
The alleged offences are said to have contravened the provisions of sections 15, 15 (3), 18, and 18 (a) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Amendment Act, 2012. 

 

THISDAY

 

Tag(s):
 
 
Back to News