A London Court yesterday ruled that any documentary evidence not authorized or released by the Federation Attorney-General, Chief Michael Andoakaa (SAN) cannot be used by the London Metropolitan Police to prosecute any Nigerian citizen before it under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).

The trial judge, Justice Rivling, gave the verdict, while ruling on the admissibility of any evidence submitted by the Ribadu-led EFCC or London Metropolitan Police to the London Court with respect to investigation of former Governor of Delta State, Chief James Onanefe Ibori.

The ruling however vindicated the Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Michael Andoakaa (SAN) who had severally held that the documentary evidence submitted by EFCC to the Metropolitan Police for the prosecution of Ibori before a London court without his consent was in breach of the provisions of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and therefore inadmissible before the law court.

According to Justice Rivling, in as much as the right procedures were not followed in initiating that cooperation between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, whatever evidence the British police gathered or got from Ribadu’s EFCC would not be admissible in the on-going trial of some of Ibori’s associates in London.

On Page 10 of the 12-page ruling, the Judge said: “I have taken the trouble to set out in some detail the chronology of the documentation brought to my attention, because it appears to reveal a woeful lack of communication between the EFCC and the Attorney (General of the Federation); then there has been a lack of communication between the Attorney and the Home Secretary.

“I state this as a fact; rather than to apportion blame. But what the picture also reveals, and what no one has doubted, is that in the result that the (Nigerian Attorney-General) has never actually been given the opportunity to consider the material in the way that the convention requires, and he has certainly never agreed that it should be handed over to the Requesting Party (the London Metropolitan Police) for use in criminal proceedings.

“I regard these breaches of Articles 6 and 7 as being fatal to its use in court. I believe that the wishes of the Attorney not merely deserve to be respected, but they must be respected. Having regard to all that has transpired, and the proximity of that first trial, it is therefore with considerable reluctance that I must rule that this evidence is inadmissible at this stage”.

The Judge continued “If the Crown seeks to rely upon the Nigerian material obtained under the relationship with the (British as authorised by Ribadu), I suggest that it should be submitted to the Attorney (General of the Federation) as soon as possible, so that he may review it and decide whether he can properly authorise its release”

”It is right that I should say that in all the circumstances of this case, I share the concerns of the defendants that the material submitted might also not have been authorised as required under the convention.

“I think it is important that this should be investigated and confirmed as soon as possible.
In the absence of an entirely satisfactory response, in pursuance of my obligation to ensure that the trial is properly managed , I request that this material too should be submitted to the Attorney-General for his consideration.

“Indeed, it may be the safest course to do this in any event.”

Touching on the matter as it concerns Mrs. Nkoyo Ibori, who has been confined to Britain for months now, the ruling stated thus:

“If the Crown intends to rely on any Nigerian evidence in the case of Theresa, this must be done as well”.