Reacting, Ejimakor said the court’s ruling would be challenged because it’s irrelevant to the dispute.
Ohakim
The counsel to a former Governor of Imo State, Ikedi Ohakim, has broken his silence after an Abuja Federal High Court gave a ruling against his client on the controversial allegation that he attempted to circulate nude videos of one Chinyere Amuchinwa.
His counsel, Aloy Ejimakor said the ruling by Justice Taiwo Taiwo that the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, Abubakar Malami, should take over the prosecution of his client from the police was “erroneous.”
Justice Taiwo Taiwo had granted leave to Malami to take over the prosecution of Ohakim over a matter relating to nude videos of one Chinyere Amuchinwa.
Reacting, Ejimakor said the court’s ruling would be challenged because it’s irrelevant to the dispute.
Ejimakor said this in a statement he issued on Monday evening.
He pointed out that the court’s ruling would not survive when challenged legally.
According to Ejimakor, the former governor was cleared of wrongdoing, adding that those against Ohakim are behind the saga.
According to Ejimakor: “The ruling created false impressions that, in the course of time, will be fully dealt with. Meanwhile, the emphasis needs to be made that this whole saga persists because Ohakim, as a former Governor and politically exposed, has detractors that have latched on this case to tarnish his stellar reputation.
“The said Chinyere Amuchinwa is already a defendant before an FCT High on the same set of facts that the Federal High Court made the instant ruling against Ohakim. This development should have foreclosed this later ruling because, at law, Ohakim cannot lawfully face trial on the same set of facts upon which she was already facing trial.
“It is also pertinent to note that these Charges were already discontinued by the Complainants before someone suddenly materialized from the office of the Attorney-General, insisting on taking over the case.”
Ejimakor explained that Amuchinwa was currently on trial because police forensic evidence showed that she produced the nude video, not Ohakim.
The lawyer maintained that the former governor never photoshopped the video.
He wondered why the court would order Ohakim to stand trial in the matter.
“She is facing trial because official police forensic evidence revealed that she was the one that produced the nude video she had accused the former governor of photoshopping. So, one wonders why a Court should rule that the former governor will stand trial on a matter upon which forensic evidence had exonerated him.
“In the light of the above, we are convinced that this very ruling was made per incuriam (in manifest error) and will thus not survive the avalanche of the legal challenges that will be brought to bear, sooner than later,” he said.