The embattled Dean of the Faculty of Law at University of Calabar, UNICAL, Professor Cyril Ndifon, has filed his no-case submission before the Federal High Court, Abuja, against the amended sexual harassment and gratification suit instituted against him and his lawyer, Barrister Sunny Anyanwu, by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The professor stated that the 22-year-old star witness, simply identified as TKJ, was in a “love” relationship with him going by the series of chats between them.
DAILY GIST recalls that TKJ, the second prosecution witness, had testified that Prof. Ndifon forced her to perform oral sex on him in exchange for help with admission into UNICAL.
Under cross-examination by the defence team led by Joe Agi, TKJ had also admitted that several allegations she made in open court — including being forced to perform oral sex on the professor — were not mentioned in her original statement to the ICPC, saying her experience was summarised out of “shame” and “fear.”
An official of the ICPC, Lucy Ogechi Chima (PW1), had also told the court that a forensic analysis carried out on the phone of the professor revealed nude photos of several contacts, including that of the star witness, TKJ.
The ICPC closed its case on February 14 after fielding an exhibit keeper as well as a forensic analyst, Fungo Bwaigu, who told Justice James Omotosho that the dean’s phone contained WhatsApp chats, nude videos, phone calls, and text messages involving TKJ, adding he was “not given TKJ’s phone by ICPC to analyze.”
But in the professor’s no-case submission filed by Agi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, told Justice James Omotosho that “evidence before the court shows that text messages between his client and TKJ were that of emotional feelings between two lovers and did not in any way put either of the party under fear.”
He stated that the “unwholesome and illegal intrusion” into the phone of his client by the complainant has now put before the whole world what TKJ and the 1st defendant intended to be a personal and private communication, thus injuring and negatively impacting their characters and persons.
Agi contended that there is inconvertible evidence that his client was arrested and investigated on an alleged offence committed in the year 2015 when he later proved to the commission that he had been cleared of the alleged offence by the police.
“The Commission who at this time was desperate to create, search for any conceivable crime seized the telephone of the 1st Defendant who was under their custody and without obtaining an order of the court as required by Section 45 of the Cyber Crime Act in breach of his fundamental right as guaranteed by Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution as amended broke into his phone and started going through his phone in search for an offense and without respect to his right to privacy.
“Then on seeing nude and pornographic pictures in the 1st Defendant’s phone jumped at the Cybercrime Act to investigate the so-called offence of cyberstalking. This is not only exposing them as an ungovernable monster but like a knight—errant that goes about looking for skirmishes and battles all over the Mace. My Lord if this is allowed to stand then we are all in trouble,” Agi added, insisting “This cannot be the intention of the lawmakers or the law.”
Agi urged the court to decline jurisdiction on the case because, under cross-examination, Chima (PW1) asserted that they received several oral and written complaints but never mentioned TKJ as one of such complainants and that TKJ was not even listed as a witness in the originating charge but “surfaced after the amended charge was filed”.
The lawyer wondered why the Registrar of UNICAL, who was listed as a witness in the original charge, was not listed in the amended one.
“This Honourable court must and should keep the ICPC within the scope and their legally demarcated boundaries as clearly provided in the statute that created them.
“In light of the above, it is submitted that count 4(threatening the witness not to honor ICPC invitation) in the originating charge was not commenced by due process of law thereby robbing this Honourable Court of jurisdiction,” Agi prayed.
Moreso, Agi contended that in the instant case, counts 1 and 2 which deal with sending and receiving nude videos and count 3 of the original charge, are not within the jurisdiction of the court as Section 26(2) and 61(3) of the Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Act, 2020 prevent the court from entertaining any of the offences brought.
“Now, let me turn to Count 4 in the original charge which is from the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015. From the Charge, proof of evidence before this Honourable Court, it is submitted that the case was not initiated by due process of law thereby depriving your lordship of jurisdiction.,” Agi maintained, urging the court to discharge his client of the said charges.
February 27 has been fixed for the adoption of written addresses by parties on the no-case submission.
