No fewer than 2,000 members of the ruling Action Congress of Nigeria in Ijebu Mushin, Ijebu East Local Government Area of Ogun State, have defected to the opposition Peoples Democratic Party.

The defectors, led by a former chairmanship aspirant of the ACN, Mr. Yemi Duduyemi, defied Saturday’s rainfall and converged on St. Mary Primary School ground, Ijebu Mushin, where they declared their loyalty for the PDP.

They were received into the PDP by party financier, Mr. Buruji Kashamu; Ogun State PDP Chairman, Chief Adebayo Dayo; the PDP National Auditor, Alhaji Wole Adeyanju; South-West Zonal Secretary, Chief Pegba Otemolu; PDP Chairman in Ijebu East Local Government, Alhaji Akinlagun Agoro, and other party leaders.

The defecting ACN members said they had to leave the party because they had been shortchanged and sidelined by the leadership of the ruling party in the state.

Dayo, in his speech on the occasion, assured the defectors that they had become part and parcel of the opposition party in the state.

He stressed that they would be fully integrated and given a sense of belonging as the old members of the party in the state.

“Let me tell you, today that the people defecting are happy people. They have nothing to fear. They would have been more than this but for the intimidation by the ruling party. I want to tell all of us that are in the PDP that the work has started now in earnest,” Dayo said.

He, however, criticised the Governor Ibikunle Amosun-led administration, accusing it of executing projects that he described as “white elephants.”

Also addressing the rally, Kashamu said the defection of the members of the ACN in the state to the opposition PDP sounded the death knell for the ruling party in the 2015 poll.


http://www.punchng.com/news/2000-ogun-acn-members-defect-to-pdp/

.

This is just the beginning. In Ekiti, the leader of about 5,000 would be defectors was murdered in cold blood and fingers are pointing the direction of the ACN led government. I dey laugh oh. . .

Op, add your source

source is th punch newspaper of 13th may 2013

akins56:

They were received into the PDP by party financier, Mr. Buruji Kashamu

This drug dealer thats still wanted by the United States Dept. of Justice.....

Nigeria is finished.

Hw does dat decrease d price of garri in d market. Abeg mak we hear word jawe

Afam4evaIsASlut:

This drug dealer thats still wanted by the United States Dept. of Justice.....

Nigeria is finished.

My thoughts exactly

PDP members to APGA in Imo state.
ACN members to PDP in Ogun state.
SMH, all these hungry politicians will never stop defecting from one party to another. I-never-chop thieves!

Them be tif/ole/barawo

PDP, u should not decieve yourselfs, they just want 2 collect your money b4 election, they wil not vote for u.

U.S. v. KASHAMU

656 F.Supp.2d 863 (2009)

UNITED STATES of America
v.

Buruji KASHAMU, et al., Defendants.

No. 94 CR 172.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.


September 25, 2009.

AUSA, Diane MacArthur, United States Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, Pretrial Services, Probation Department, for United States of America.
Pravin B. Rao, Perkins Coie LLP, Scott Jay Frankel, Frankel & Cohen, Jonathan R. Buck, Perkins Coie LLC, Chicago, IL, for Buruji Kashamu.






OPINION AND ORDER

CHARLES R. NORGLE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Buruji Kashamu's ("Kashamu" Motion to Quash Arrest and to Dismiss Indictment (the "Motion". For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion without prejudice. Kashamu is granted leave to refile the Motion when he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court.
I. BACKGROUND1

In March 1994, Defendant Kary Hayes ("Hayes" arrived at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois on a flight from Zurich, Switzerland carrying a suitcase containing approximately fourteen pounds of heroin. Authorities discovered the heroin and arrested Hayes. Hayes agreed to cooperate, and revealed that he was a member of a group of smugglers who were bringing heroin into the United States. United States v. Stebbins, 219 Fed.Appx. 569, 571 (7th Cir. March 22, 2007). Hayes disclosed the identity of several co-conspirators, who named others, ultimately bringing down the entire conspiracy. Id. The government eventually brought charges against fourteen Defendants, including the alleged kingpin, Kashamu, who resided in the Republic of Benin in western Africa. Id. Eleven Defendants pleaded guilty, and
[ 656 F.Supp.2d 865 ]

the only Defendant to go to trial, Peter Stebbins, was convicted after seven of his co-defendants testified against him. Id. With respect to certain identification issues, one or more of the female co-defendants testified that they had engaged in personal sexual relations with Kashamu. The Court sentenced these Defendants to prison terms of varying lengths. Federal Bureau of Prison records indicate that many of these Defendants have been released from custody after serving their sentences. Two Defendants remain at large in this case — one of these Defendants is Kashamu. Id.

This case is therefore presently in somewhat of an unusual posture: Kashamu, whom the government indicates may currently be in Nigeria, has filed the Motion approximately eleven years after his indictment,2 and several years after many of the individuals he allegedly directed to smuggle heroin have completed their terms of incarceration. In order to more fully explain the factual and procedural context in which the Motion arises, the Court must briefly turn its attention to Kashamu's 1998 arrest in London, England and the extradition proceedings that followed that arrest.

At some point during its investigation into the Defendants' smuggling activities, the government learned that Kashamu occasionally traveled to London. The government therefore requested the issuance of a provisional arrest warrant in England. On December 18, 1998, British authorities arrested Kashamu when he arrived on an inbound flight to London. Kashamu was detained, and extradition proceedings were initiated. The British court, however, quashed the order of extradition, finding that the United States had failed to disclose that one of its cooperating witnesses, a Defendant in the instant case, had failed to identify Kashamu from an arrest photograph. Regina v. (1) The Governor of HMP Prison, Brixton, (2) The Government of the United States Ex Parte Buruji Kashamu, CO/2344/1999; CO/2141/2000 (High Court of Justice Oct. 6, 2000). It is not clear from the record whether any of the other co-defendants were involved in an identification hearing. Following this decision, British authorities released Kashamu.


When the United States repeated its request for Kashamu's extradition, British authorities arrested him again. After receiving evidence, including the testimony of Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency officials regarding Kashamu's cooperation with that Agency in several investigations, the British court concluded that Kashamu's brother, a heroin dealer in Nigeria and Benin, was the individual sought by the United States. "I am satisfied that the defendant has a brother who bears a striking resemblance to him . . . I am satisfied that the defendant's brother was one of the co-conspirators in the drugs importation which involved Catherine and Ellen Wolters . . ."3Government of the United States of America v. Buruji Kashamu, at 9 (Street Magistrates' Court January 10, 2003). The British court therefore dismissed the extradition proceedings against Kashamu and released him. Id. at 10. Kashamu's current whereabouts are unknown to this Court, although, as the Court has previously noted, he may be located somewhere in Nigeria.
Kashamu, through counsel, filed the Motion on February 3, 2009. Kashamu asserts that the British Court's finding that
[ 656 F.Supp.2d 866 ]

he is not the individual the United States seeks should bar the United States from any further prosecution of him in this matter under the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. In its initial Response, the government asserted that the Court should deny the Motion on its merits. However, in a later submission, the government changed course and argued that since Kashamu is a fugitive from justice, the Court should decline to reach the merits of his Motion. The Motion is fully briefed and before the Court.
II. DISCUSSION

In Molinaro v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court refused to adjudicate a criminal case in which the defendant/appellant had refused to surrender to state authorities after his conviction. 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).

No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for a determination of his claims.
Id. at 366, 90 S.Ct. 498 (citing Smith v. United States,94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32 (1876) and Bonahan v. Nebraska,125 U.S. 692, 8 S.Ct. 1390, 31 L.Ed. 854 (1887) (both ordering the removal of the case from the Court's docket after receiving information that the appellant had escaped from custody)). The principle articulated by the Molinaro Court — that those who have fled from the judicial process may not benefit from it — is known as the "doctrine of fugitive disentitlement." E.g., United States v. Eagleson,874 F.Supp. 27, 29 (D.Mass. 1994).

The fugitive disentitlement doctrine is based on a notion of mutuality. Degen v. United States,517 U.S. 820, 824, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996); Smith, 94 U.S. at 97 ("It is clearly within our discretion to refuse to hear a criminal case in error, unless the convicted party. . . is where he can be made to respond to any judgment we might enter."; Eagleson, 874 F.Supp. at 29. Courts are reluctant to afford fugitive defendants the benefits of a potential legal victory when these defendants face no adverse consequences from unfavorable rulings. United States v. Oliveri,190 F.Supp.2d 933, 935 (S.D.Tex.2001) ("the fugitive disentitlement doctrine has come to signify the unwillingness of courts to waste time and resources exercising jurisdiction over litigants who will only comply with favorable rulings of the court."; United States v. Stanzione,391 F.Supp. 1201, 1201 (S.D.N.Y.1975) ("until [defendant] is willing to submit his case for complete adjudication — win or lose — he should not be permitted to call upon the resources of the court for the determination of selective claims."; Dawkins v. Mitchell,437 F.2d 646, 648 (D.C.Cir.1970).

Seventh Circuit case law recognizes that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is a "discretionary device" courts may apply to criminal appeals or civil actions by or against fugitives. Gutierrez-Almazan v. Gonzales,453 F.3d 956, 956 (7th Cir.2006). While the Seventh Circuit has not expressly indicated whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to pretrial motions in criminal cases, other Courts have utilized the doctrine in that context. Oliveri, 190 F.Supp.2d at 936 ("Although the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is often invoked during the appellate process, it also applies to pretrial motions made by fugitives in the district courts." (citing Eagleson, 874 F.Supp. at 29-31); Stanzione, 391
[ 656 F.Supp.2d 867 ]

F.Supp. at 1201 (denying the fugitive defendant's motion to dismiss indictment); United States v. Hijazi, No. 05-40024, 2008 WL 4151337, at *2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79843, at *7-8 (C.D.Ill. Sept. 4, 2008) (holding defendant resident of Kuwait's motion to dismiss indictment in abeyance until defendant appears for arraignment). In their reasoning, these Courts have emphasized the principle of mutuality. Stanzione, 391 F.Supp. at 1201 ("[I]f the motion to dismiss were to be denied on the merits, defendant would remain a fugitive from justice, making it impossible to bring this case to a final resolution."; Hijazi, 2008 WL 4151337, at *2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79843, at *8 ("Hijazi seeks the benefit of a ruling from this Court without the risk that, if the ruling is not in his favor, he appear and be arraigned.". In addition, the Oliveri Court indicated that it did not want to encourage the flight of other fugitives by entertaining the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. Oliveri, 190 F.Supp.2d at 936. This Court finds the reasoning of the Oliveri, Stanzione, and Hijazi Courts persuasive, and therefore determines that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine can apply to pretrial motions in criminal cases, subject to the discretion of the Court. See Gutierrez-Almazan, 453 F.3d at 956 (indicating that fugitive disentitlement is a "discretionary device.".
In order to make a specific determination as to whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine should apply to the Motion, the Court must inquire into whether (1) Kashamu is a fugitive in the eyes of the law, and (2) any exceptions to the doctrine exist in this case. Oliveri, 190 F.Supp.2d at 936.
Courts define the term "fugitive" as someone who seeks to evade prosecution by either actively avoiding the authorities, or remaining in a geographic location that is out of the authorities' reach.

The intent to flee from prosecution or arrest may be inferred from a person's failure to surrender to authorities once he learns that charges against him are pending. This is true whether the defendant leaves the jurisdiction intending to avoid prosecution, or, having learned of the charges while legally outside the jurisdiction, "constructively flees" by deciding not to return.

United States v. Catino,735 F.2d 718, 722 (2d Cir.1984); Oliveri, 190 F.Supp.2d at 936; Eagleson, 874 F.Supp. at 29. Since Kashamu has retained a Chicago law firm to represent him in this matter, and the only information the Court has regarding his whereabouts indicates that he may be somewhere in Nigeria, the Court can safely infer that Kashamu is aware of the charges against him, and "is purposefully absenting himself from the United States to avoid arrest and arraignment on the charges." Oliveri, 190 F.Supp.2d at 936. The Court therefore considers Kashamu a fugitive.

In Oliveri, the Court indicated that where "special circumstance[s]" or "overriding policy concern[s]" exist, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine may not apply. Id. The Oliveri Court did not provide specific examples of such "special circumstance[s]" or "overriding policy concern[s]," but a notable case from the Southern District of Florida is instructive. In United States v. Noriega, the United States indicted the de facto head of the Panamanian government, General Manuel Noriega ("Noriega" on drug trafficking and other related charges. 683 F.Supp. 1373 (S.D.Fla.1988). The indictment alleged that Noriega was part of an international conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. Id. at 1373. The Florida Court declined to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and allowed Noriega, through counsel, to file various pretrial motions. Id. at 1374-75. In so doing, the Court cited Noriega's
[ 656 F.Supp.2d 868 ]

"unique status" as the leader of a sovereign state and the significant "political overtones" of the case. Id. at 1374-75.4 No such circumstances exist in the instant case.
Having found that (1) Kashamu is a fugitive and (2) no exceptions to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine exist in this case, the Court therefore denies the Motion. See Molinaro, 396 U.S. at 366, 90 S.Ct. 498; Catino, 735 F.2d at 722; Oliveri, 190 F.Supp.2d at 936. Kashamu will not be permitted to litigate the merits of the Motion until he appears before the Court. Even now, eleven years after the return of the indictment, the door to the federal courtroom remains open to Kashamu.


III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Kashamu's Motion to Quash Arrest and to Dismiss Indictment is denied without prejudice. Kashamu is granted leave to refile the Motion when he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Who givs a Bleep? They can defect to hell fire for all i care. Silly polithievescians!

Afam4evaIsASlut:

This drug dealer thats still wanted by the United States Dept. of Justice.....

Nigeria is finished.

Den dai shld interpol after him nau

Afam4evaIsASlut:

This drug dealer thats still wanted by the United States Dept. of Justice.....

Nigeria is finished.

Is tinubu not wanted in the US?

I call them 2, 000 zombie. They are only interested in where they will be shared rice, salk, ankara and 1, 000 they used to give them in every meeting they have.
I was a member of ACN During the last election... and in our meetings we contribute money to help the party and also transport ourselves to conventions.
So these are hungry desperate zombies!!!

Make i go baff first, wen i come bak i go comment.

solomon111: Is tinubu not wanted in the US?

Nope. He was at the Democratic Convention with Obama a few months ago, NEPA take your light or did your bigoted mind just forget to retain that information for future use?

so what shud i do

This is call political jumpotology meaning the movement of greedy politicians from one political party to another

ACN TO PDP TO CPC TO LP TO ACN
the cycle continues

I wont be suprised if after one year, they defect back to ACN. Greedy thieves.

Its high time rule 21 was introduced considering the preponderance of short-hand texts on Nairaland.
@topic,More members for the ruinous,murderous,treacherous and the depraved PDP gang

Temismith: Make i go baff first, wen i come bak i go comment.

wait make we go baff 2geda

solomon111: Is tinubu not wanted in the US?

Just don't mind that disillusioned citizen. He would have been joyous if the defectors had been against PDP interest.

Professor Peter: This is call political jumpotology meaning the movement of greedy politicians from one political party to another

Tot we only hv progresives in ACN,

As usual ACN/CPC supporters will talk down on this and try to ridicule those (who were free from corruption as long as they were in ACN) that defected. But when PDP folks(who opposition describe as corrupt) defected they become progressives.

In as much as I pray for a viable opposition, ACN/CPC is as bad or even worse than the worse people in PDP. There are exceptions though, just like there are exceptions in PDP.

2015 election: may God help us.

olabukola: Tot we only hv progresives in ACN,

That is my problem with ACN/CPC folks. They (not all though) are in the highest form of hypocrisy.

[quote
author=Afam4evaIsASlut]

Nope. He was at the Democratic Convention with Obama a few months ago,
NEPA take your light or did your bigoted mind just forget to retain that
information for future use?[/quote] DONT MIND HIM.THEY ARE HATERS