A Federal High Court in Lagos on
Thursday ordered for the arrest of the ex- Niger-Delta militant leader, Mr
Government Ekpemupolo, also popularly known as Tompolo.
Thursday ordered for the arrest of the ex- Niger-Delta militant leader, Mr
Government Ekpemupolo, also popularly known as Tompolo.
Justice Ibrahim Buba ordered the arrest when the ex-militant leader failed to
appear before the court in the case brought by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC).
It would be recalled that the Judge had on Wednesday ordered Tompolo to appear
before it to answer questions on the allegation of converting millions of dollars,
naira and property belonging to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety
Agency ( NIMASA) for his personal use.
before it to answer questions on the allegation of converting millions of dollars,
naira and property belonging to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety
Agency ( NIMASA) for his personal use.
The order was granted
following a motion to that effect by the EFCC.
following a motion to that effect by the EFCC.
Apart from Tompolo, also
affected by the order were the former NIMASA Director-General, Mr Patrick
Ziakede Akpobolokemi, Global West Vessel Specialist Limited (owned by Tompolo),
Odimixi Electricals Limited, Kime Engozu, Boloboere Property and Estate
Limited, Rex Elem, Destre Consult Limited, Gregory Mbonu and Captain Warredi
Enisuoh.
affected by the order were the former NIMASA Director-General, Mr Patrick
Ziakede Akpobolokemi, Global West Vessel Specialist Limited (owned by Tompolo),
Odimixi Electricals Limited, Kime Engozu, Boloboere Property and Estate
Limited, Rex Elem, Destre Consult Limited, Gregory Mbonu and Captain Warredi
Enisuoh.
Details of the 40-count charge
were alleged conversion of N601, 516.13 and $1, 766, 428.62, property of
NIMASA, into private concerns; conversion of NIMASA’s N27,690,113.79 and $17,
491, 378.64, including N27, 690,113.79 and $17, 491, 378.64, owned by NIMASA
for personal use.
were alleged conversion of N601, 516.13 and $1, 766, 428.62, property of
NIMASA, into private concerns; conversion of NIMASA’s N27,690,113.79 and $17,
491, 378.64, including N27, 690,113.79 and $17, 491, 378.64, owned by NIMASA
for personal use.
The offence was described as
against section 15 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act
2012 and punishable under section 15(3) of the same Act.
against section 15 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act
2012 and punishable under section 15(3) of the same Act.
According to the EFCC, the
re-arrest of Akpobolokemi after the release granted to him by the Court was
because of the fresh N34bn fraud allegation.
re-arrest of Akpobolokemi after the release granted to him by the Court was
because of the fresh N34bn fraud allegation.
However, other accused persons
in the case were represented.
in the case were represented.
Festus Keyamo who is EFCC
prosecutor told the court that the failure of Tompolo to appear in court was a
clear disobedience to the court order, explaining that he had been fully served
the summon.
prosecutor told the court that the failure of Tompolo to appear in court was a
clear disobedience to the court order, explaining that he had been fully served
the summon.
Tompolo, Keyamo recalled had
ignored EFCC’s invitation to make a statement on the allegation against him.
ignored EFCC’s invitation to make a statement on the allegation against him.
He called on the court to
issue a warrant of his arrest for failing to obey the order of court.
issue a warrant of his arrest for failing to obey the order of court.
However, Akpobolokemi’s Counsel,
Dr Joseph Nwobike, SAN, who spoke on the issue told the court to consider
giving Tompolo more time to come to Lagos since he was in served in Warri just
Wednesday.
Dr Joseph Nwobike, SAN, who spoke on the issue told the court to consider
giving Tompolo more time to come to Lagos since he was in served in Warri just
Wednesday.
In his ruling, the judge
ordered his arrest, arguing that this should be so since he had been issued
with court summon.
ordered his arrest, arguing that this should be so since he had been issued
with court summon.
