 |
| Kashamu responds to Associated Press: Give details of purported indictment |
2.
First, it should be noted that this is part of a renewed
campaign of calumny and propaganda that I have anticipated and I am prepared
for.
3.
I wish to state for the umpteenth time that I am not man
who was indicted in the said case. It was a certain “ALAJI” and not me, Prince
Buruji Kashamu.
4.
Also, contrary to the AP’s account, after the failed
extradition attempts by the United States government against me in the United
Kingdom – that has one of the best judiciary in the whole world – there has
never been any request or court order to that effect in Nigeria. It only exists
in the wild imagination of AP’s correspondent.
5.
There cannot be an order of extradition of a suspect from
any country to another country without extradition proceedings. It is trite
knowledge that an order of court only arises from a court proceedings. If a
court has not exercised its jurisdiction over a matter, it cannot make an order
pertaining to that matter.
6.
I, Prince Buruji Kashamu, between 1998 and 2003, was the
suspect in the extradition proceedings instituted by the United States
government against me in the British courts, and at the end of the trial, the
British High Court per Justice Tim Workman, discharged and acquitted me
on the basis of his findings that the US government suppressed information that
exonerated me of the allegations that formed the basis of the extradition
proceedings; precisely that it was a case of mistaken identity which the U.S
investigators and prosecution team knew about but suppressed in their bid to
secure my extradition from the UK to the US.
Related Story
Related Story
Glorification of Criminality: Financial Times calls Tinubu the Machiavelli of Nigeria for bringing down Jonathan's government
7.
It is noteworthy – and this is a point which my detractors
have deliberately chosen to ignore – that the facts constituting the
extradition proceedings in the UK which I was subjected to, but eventually
exculpated of, are the same facts which constitute the indictment in the US
that my opponents and others acting out of ignorance of the true state of
affairs have been trumpeting as if there are two sets of indictments – one in
the UK and another in the US – and that having been discharged and acquitted of
the one in the UK, I now have that in the US to contend with.
8.
In other words, it is the same indictment that my opponents
are talking about that the US government used as the basis for my extradition
proceedings in the UK courts. So, if I was discharged and acquitted of the
allegations in the said proceedings which other trial am I expected to undergo
in the US when it was not a case of more than one set of indictment whereby I
was tried and discharged in respect of one while another set is still pending
in the US for which I am required to undergo trial?
9.
To be noted also is the fact that the US government did not
appeal the decision of the UK court that discharged and acquitted me in respect
of the charges.
10.
And as I have often stated, I have never lived in or visited the United
States of America and have never been involved in any narcotics or criminal
activities in the United States of America.
11.
I am a free citizen of Nigeria, an employer of labour and a politician
with legitimate sources of income. I do not have anything to hide. I am neither
afraid of anyone nor am I running away from the law. I have lived my life in
the open and will continue to do so.
The
Background to the case
1.
In 1998, as a
result of my political activities in the Republic of Benin I was wrongly
introduced into an indictment in the Northern District of Illinois, United
States of America involving a group of drug pushers, members of which had been
arrested and convicted in 1994 in the US and as a part of a plea bargain
transaction had indicated that they had a West African link.
2.
None of these
confessed criminals mentioned my name (Prince Buruji Kashamu) and repeatedly
indicated to their jailers that they did not know their West African accomplice
by any other name than “ALAJI”
3.
Apparently the US
Embassy in Benin, which was facilitating the enquiry by the US Authorities as
to who the “ALAJI” could be, somehow received information from some
mischief-makers that it was me. That was how my name was introduced into
the indictment in 1998 by the US authorities.
4.
All this happened
without reference to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency in Nigeria or in
the other relevant West African countries in which the enquiries were being
made and unknown to me who at the time regularly visited the United Kingdom in
pursuit of my cotton trading business in Liverpool.
5.
On one of such trips
in 1998, I was accosted at the City Airport in London and eventually informed
that there was an international warrant for my arrest issued by the United
States.
6.
I was therefore
detained and an application for my extradition to the US was made to the
British Courts by the US authorities through the British Crown Prosecution
Service.
7.
I declared from
the moment of my arrest that I was not the person involved in the alleged
narcotics business and that this was a case of mistaken identity.
8.
As a result, an
identification parade was conducted by the British authorities in which the
leader of the confessed criminals in the US, one Nick Fillmore, clearly stated
that I was not the man they knew as “ALAJI”
9.
However, the US
authorities decided not to reveal this information to the British court and
were able to secure an order in their favour in 1998 for my extradition to the
US.
10.
Fortunately for me, the result
of the identification parade came into the hands of my lawyers early in 1999
before I could be shipped off to the US and they immediately commenced an
Habeas Corpus action in the English High Court, Queens Bench division, for my
release and the vacation of the committal order made by the Court.
11.
The English High Court in
December 1999 delivered its judgment read by Lord Justice Pill, and summarized
the facts as follows:
“What
has now emerged, with a letter from the United States’ Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois, is a report of an investigation into the case against the
applicant conducted on 9 February 1999. The report stated insofar as material,
that on 8 February 1999, Fillmore viewed a photo lineup for the purpose of
identifying Kashamu. The meeting was held in the US Attorney’s office. An
officer of the Attorney had received a copy of an arrest photograph of Kashamu
from another officer. The report continues that the officer
‘…took
the copy of the arrest photograph and placed in a DEA form 470, photo
identification folder, with seven photographs of black males. These black males
had similar facial hair and were the approximate age of Kashamu. This photo
lineup was shown to Fillmore. Fillmore provided the following statements: ‘it
is not jumping out at me, I know what the man looks like.’ Fillmore further
stated that photograph #03 looked like a bad photograph of him. Photos #02,
#04, #06, #07 and #08 did not look like him at all. Fillmore stated that #05
looked a lot like him but did not look like him. Fillmore ruled out photograph
#01. Fillmore stated that #05 looked the closest like Alaji’
That is
the name by which Fillmore knew his co-conspirator. ‘The arrest photograph of
Kashamu was placed in position #07 of the photo lineup.’
I add
by way of comment that that was one of the photographs which Fillmore said did
not look like the co-conspirator at all. A photograph of the applicant, the
arrest photograph, taken upon the applicant’s arrest about three years after
the events relevant to the alleged conspiracy, had been shown Fillmore on 8
February, with that result.
No
reference was made to the 9 February report in the Statement prepared by the
United States Government for the application for extradition. It was mentioned
neither in the United States Attorney’s statement nor in the Statement signed
by Fillmore. The arrest photograph was disclosed but no reference was made to
its potentially exculpatory effect.”
12.
In that judgment the judges
then proceeded to set aside the committal order having further found as follows
in the judgment: “The committal order, must in the circumstances, be quashed by
reason of the unfairness of the proceedings resulting from the non-disclosure
of crucial evidence, as accepted by the government. The writ of habeas corpus
will, accordingly issue”.
13.
The US authorities did not
appeal that decision but immediately had me rearrested and commenced a second
extradition process against him at the Bow Street Magistrate Court in England
before District Judge Tim Workman.
14.
In his judgment, delivered in
the second extradition proceedings on the 10th of January 2003, District Judge
Tim Workman found as follows: “As a result of the evidence that the Defence has
placed before me and the evidence which the Government has tendered in
rebuttal, I find the following facts: that the defendant has a brother, Alhaji
Adewale Adeshina Kashamu who bears a striking resemblance to that of his
brother; I am satisfied that the defendant's brother was one of the
co-conspirators in the drugs importation which involved Catherine and Ellen
Wolters; I am satisfied that the defendant informed both interpol and the
National Drug Law Enforcement Agency of the activities of this group.”
15.
The judge in concluding his
judgment went on to state as follows: “certain of the assertions made by the
government are untrue ……I am satisfied that the overwhelming evidence here is
such that the identification evidence, already tenuos, has now been so undermined
as to make it incredible and valueless. In those circumstances there is no
prima facie case against the defendant and I propose to discharge him”
16.
The US authorities did not
appeal this decision and have not pursued me or made any other attempt to
extradite me since that decision.
17.
All these facts are now matters
of public record and the relevant documents (including the judgments of the
courts are available for scrutiny by anyone who is interested in knowing the
truth.
18.
In 2008, some politicians (in a
bid to neutralize me, perceived as a threat to their ambitions) commenced a
campaign of calumny against me alleging that I was a convicted drug dealer who
had been jailed in the United Kingdom for 5 years for drug-related offences and
was wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States of
America for similar offences.
19.
The Interpol department of the
Nigerian Police Force conducted investigations upon the allegations and published
a report dated 4th March, 2008, and signed by ACP Haruna H. Mshelia, in which
it stated inter alia
“That
all our letters written to Interpol London, Lyon, Washington and Cotonou
relating to enquiries on criminal/drug/conviction records of the suspect were
returned negative to the effect that the suspect was never convicted of such
offence in their territory.”
20.
I commenced several lawsuits as
a result of this attack on my person. Most of the lawsuits were commenced in
2010 in Libel.
21.
Faced with these circumstances,
and in a desperate bid to find justification for their false allegations, these
politicians began to pressurize the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to
resuscitate the misdirected US indictment against me in Nigeria and to
instigate an extradition process against me on the baseless accusations.
22.
When I became aware of these
moves, I commenced an action at the Federal High Court in Lagos against the AGF
seeking an interpretation of the Nigerian Extradition Act and determination of
some questions as to whether the AGF could exercise his powers under that Act
against me in the context of the findings of the British Courts that I am not
the person involved in the alleged narcotics transaction and in view of a
decision of the US Court of the northern District of Illinois, delivered in
2009 (upon my application to the US court to remove my name from the
indictment) confirming that I was not a fugitive from justice in America.
23.
The Federal High Court in this
Suit No. FHC/L/CS/938/2010 in its judgment found that the AGF could not
exercise any power against me under the Nigerian Extradition Act when I had
been found not to be involved in any alleged crime in the US and because I am
not a fugitive.
24.
The AGF appealed against this
judgment on the ground that he had received no request from the U.S. Government
for my extradition before the suit was filed and therefore, since none of my
rights had been breached, the action was pre-mature.
25.
The decision of the Court of
Appeal was based on this narrow issue and it agreed with the AGF that since I
did not prove that a request had been made against me to the AGF, then my
personal right had not been breached and therefore the court action was
pre-mature.
26.
I have been advised that the
decision is erroneous in law and an appeal was therefore filed to set it aside
and restore the decision of the Federal High Court. That appeal is still
pending at the Supreme Court.
27.
A second action filed against
Nigerian law enforcement agencies, including the Nigeria Police Force and the
AGF in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/49/2010, eventually went on to judgment delivered on
the 6th of January 2014. In that judgment, the court found that in view of the
judgments of the British courts and the Interpol investigation report, the law
enforcement agencies and the Attorney-General of the Federation could not act
against me on any of the allegations being made by the politicians against me.
28.
That judgment is still valid
and subsisting and binding on all the law enforcement agencies.
29.
With regard to the indictment
and ensuing litigation in the United States District Court of Northern Illinois;
this has also been used by my detractors to give the false impression that I am
actively being pursued by the U.S. authorities to face trial in the U.S.
30.
In reality, I am the one who
has been actively pursuing the dismissal of this insupportable indictment
against me.
31.
It is important to bear in
mind, first of all, that an indictment is not a conviction or finding of guilt
of any offence, it is merely an accusation based on suspicion and is a framed
charge, which is brought before a competent court which must proceed from the
fundamental premise that the accused is innocent until proved guilty.
32.
Normally, in American Criminal
Procedure Law, an indictment is framed by a grand jury (a body of 23 laymen
chosen at random) before which the investigation results of the relevant law
enforcement agency is placed by the prosecutor in order that the Grand Jury may
determine if there is sufficient evidence to base a reasonable suspicion upon
which the persons accused of an offence may be charged to court to face a
criminal trial.
33.
Therefore, the fact that a
person is indicted does not make him/her a criminal.
Signed:
Prince
Buruji Kashamu
Senator-elect,
Ogun East Senatorial District
Related Story
No comments:
Post a Comment