British court suspends James Ibori’s confiscation hearing

The suspension of the hearing will last until the conclusion of the investigation of corruption and misleading the court charges brought against the British Police and the Prosecution in sending Ibori to jail

The Southwark Crown Court in London has ruled to suspend the start of the confiscation hearing against a former Delta State Governor, Chief James Ibori.
The suspension of the hearing will last until the conclusion of the investigation of corruption and misleading the court charges brought against the British Police and the Prosecution in sending Ibori to jail.
According to a statement by Ibori’s Media Assistant, Tony Eluemunor, Ibori’s lead counsel, Ivan Krolic (Queen’s Councel), had asked the court to halt proceedings because the review, which will end early August this year, may also prove that the prosecution, having known of the corrupt and sharp practices, refused to disclose such evidences, but relied upon it and thereby misled the court in securing Ibori’s conviction, thus desecrating the much-respected British legal system.
His Honour, Judge Tomlinson, stoutly resisted Ibori’s application, leading to a passionate exchange with Ibori’s lawyer.
Judge Tomlinson: “What do I tell the listing officer for not continuing with this proceeding; I need to get a grip of this. Mr Ibori has been convicted nearly three years ago.”
Krolic (cuts in): “Four years.”
JudgeTomlinson: “Mr Ibori has been convicted nearly four years. When does the confiscation hearing start?”
Krolic: “This proceeding will start when the Crown completes its review into police corruption. I ask rhetorically: could the court continue with this confiscation hearing when there is an application on abuse of court process? We say the Crown Prosecution has manipulated this confiscation proceedings and Crown Prosecution Counsel made misleading statements and submissions. This hearing will not be fair unless the Review is completed and we know to what extent there has been intent to mislead the court and the extent of corruption leading to non-disclosure of materials against Ibori.”
With tension rising between the Judge and Ibori’s lead counsel, Tomlinson said: “I know that your (Ibori’s defence team) position has always been that this case be litigated sooner than later, you have always opposed the crown on stay of proceeding, only for you to bring an application on Monday for a stay of proceeding, but what I need to know is: how does this case going to be affected by the review? I still don’t know where we are going.”
Krolic: “The review into the police corruption not only concerns the safety of the conviction but also of the non-disclosure of materials used against Ibori. The background is that the Prosecution had initially relied on Assumption 72AA of the Criminal Justice Act in only some of the charges only to turn around after three weeks of proceedings when the case had been closed and submission made by all parties to inform the court that the Defence team had confused them and that they would now be seeking to apply Assumption 72AA across board. At the closing, the Crown claimed that they were confused and Judge, Anthony Pitts, said he was also confused and ordered the confiscation proceedings to start afresh permitting the Crown to apply Section 72AA across board. We say, they (Crown Prosecution) said to the Judge that they were confused and if the Court’s ruling was based on the intention by the Crown Prosecution to mislead the Court, we say that was an abuse of Court Process.”
Swayed by the appeal to the very concept of justice, the new lead Crown Prosecution Counsel, (the earlier one, Shasha Wass, as well as all others involved in investigating and prosecuting Ibori and his associates have since been dropped from the case over charges of impropriety and corruption), Mr. Kinnear QC, interrupted the argument, saying: “I on behalf of the Crown have always said that in the interest of Justice that the case be adjourned until the conclusion of the disclosure review. Your Honour, we ask: is it in the interest of Justice that this matter be adjourned? Our response will be a resounding Yes. We can’t trample on the defendant’s right – in the interest of justice. Your Honour, the application to adjourn is an application this court must accede to in the interest of justice.”
Owing to this, the judge said: “I am influenced by the submission of the Crown. I do therefore agree that this confiscation proceeding should therefore adjourn.”

Comments