Alex Enumah in Abuja
Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja, yesterday, dismissed the no-case-submission filed by the suspended Dean of Faculty of Law, University of Calabar (UNICAL), Prof. Cyril Ndifon and his lawyer, Mr Sunny Anyanwu, in their trial over alleged sexual harassment.
Justice Omotosho subsequently ordered the duo to enter their defence in the four count charge brought against them by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The judge while ruling in the no-case-submission, held that the evidence led by the prosecution constituted a prima facie case against the defendant.
Ndifon and Anyanwu had, on February 19, filed a no-case-submission after the ICPC closed its case.
Their lawyer, Joe Agi, SAN, had submitted that the testimonies as well as exhibits presented by prosecution witnesses did not link the defendants with the charge.
But the commission, in opposition, filed a counter affidavit on February 23, praying the court to dismiss the application.
Delivering the ruling in the no-case-submission, Omotosho held that since the ICPC was a federal agency and the 1st defendant a public officer in a federal institution, “All these factors makes this court a proper venue to try the offences,”.
On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the judge disagreed with the defence counsel that the court was not the right venue for the trial since the cause of action arose in Cross River.
On whether the ICPC had powers to investigate and prosecute offences under the Cybercrimes Act, 2015, he said the commission was a prime federal law enforcement agency with the mandate of investigating and prosecuting offences of corruption, fraud, bribery and abuse of office by public officers, going by its Act under Section 47.
“This makes it a relevant law enforcement agency with requisite powers to prosecute offenders under the Cybercrimes Prohibition Act. Consequently, the ICPC has powers to prosecute the Defendants,” he said.
With respect to the issue of no-case-submission, the judge observed that “the defendants are facing a charge of causing a person to send phonographic images of themselves, soliciting for nude pictures and committing acts intended to pervert the course of justice.”
According to him, the evidence so far led by the prosecution shows prima facie that the 1st defendant (Ndifon) solicited for the nude photos of PW2 (female diploma student) with the promise of giving her admission into the Faculty of Law of the University of Calabar.
“PW1 who was one of the investigators testified that examinations carried out on the phone of the Ist defendant reveals messages from 1st defendant to PW2 soliciting for these images.
“This court thinks these pieces of evidence requires some explanation from the 1st defendant as to the purpose and intents of these messages.
“With regards to counts 3 and 4, evidence led by the prosecution shows that while the original charge was pending, the Ist defendant sent the phone number of PW2 to 2nd defendant (Anyanwu) who was counsel to Ist defendant to call her.
“It is alleged by the prosecution that the purpose of the call is for PW2 not to honour the invitation of the ICPC. Taken on its own, this piece of evidence prima facie establishes a case of intent to pervert the cause of justice.
“The defendants are therefore required to explain the relationship between 2nd defendant and PW2. These and other pieces of evidence needs the defendants to explain their side of the story,” he said.
The judge, however, said that “holding that a prima facie case has been established does not necessarily imply that the court finds the defendants guilty of the charge.”
According to him, it is simply to allow the defendants exhaust their options for their defence and to clear every unresolved issue which may weigh on the mind of the court in reaching a final decision.
