The Gladiators Beyond The Arena – 13

We have written to the court and the EFCC – Now We are waiting for the record

BY PAUL LUCKY OKOKU

For several weeks, I have been examining an old Nigerian football corruption case that entered the public record, generated headlines, reached the courts — and then became increasingly difficult for an ordinary member of the public to follow to a final conclusion.

The case is:

𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚 𝐯. 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧 & 𝟐 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬
𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐍𝐨. 𝐅𝐂𝐓/𝐇𝐂/𝐂𝐑/𝟑𝟐𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖

According to the public court record and contemporaneous reporting, the 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐄𝐅𝐂𝐂) arraigned three Nigeria Football Federation officials before the 𝐅𝐂𝐓 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 in Abuja on 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖:

𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧 — then NFF Director of Administration and Finance
𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐙𝐚𝐤𝐚 — then NFF Cashier
𝐅𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢 𝐌𝐚𝐦𝐳𝐚 — then NFF Head of Finance and Accounts

The prosecution concerned allegations involving 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 commonly reported at approximately 𝐔𝐒$𝟗.𝟓 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧.

The three defendants 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐲.

That distinction is important.

𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍.

According to the public record, the EFCC later sought to add then-NFF President 𝐀𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐮 𝐏𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐤 and NFF General Secretary 𝐃𝐫. 𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬𝐢 as defendants.

On 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎, 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐎. 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧 refused that application. The court held that joining them in the circumstances would amount to an abuse of court process because of related proceedings that had already taken place elsewhere.

The record on that point should be stated plainly:

𝐀𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐮 𝐏𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬𝐢 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐍𝐨. 𝐅𝐂𝐓/𝐇𝐂/𝐂𝐑/𝟑𝟐𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞.

The prosecution against the original three defendants, however, remained.

According to contemporaneous reporting, 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧 adjourned the trial to 𝐀𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐥 𝟑𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎.

And that is where my public-interest concern begins.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭?

Was the matter heard?

Was it reassigned?

Did witnesses testify?

Were exhibits admitted?

Was the charge withdrawn?

Was there an acquittal?

Was there a discharge?

Was there a conviction?

Was there another procedural outcome?

Was there a final judgment or order?

The matter becomes even more important because 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧 was later elevated to the 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 in 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏, one of 18 High Court judges promoted at that time. Reporting then warned that numerous pending cases before elevated judges could have to begin afresh before other judges.

That raises a legitimate documentary question about this particular prosecution:

𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄 𝐍𝐎. 𝐅𝐂𝐓/𝐇𝐂/𝐂𝐑/𝟑𝟐𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐆𝐍𝐄𝐃 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐈𝐅 𝐒𝐎, 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐄𝐗𝐓?

I do not believe the public should have to guess.

So I have taken two formal steps.

First, I wrote to the 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲, 𝐀𝐛𝐮𝐣𝐚, requesting the procedural status and final disposition of the case.

Second, I wrote an open letter to 𝐄𝐅𝐂𝐂 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐎𝐥𝐚 𝐎𝐥𝐮𝐤𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝𝐞, asking the Commission to clarify what became of this prosecution and other longstanding Nigerian football financial matters that entered the public record.

The open letter to the EFCC Chairman has already been published publicly. It asks for the documentary trail to reach an ending rather than asking readers to presume wrongdoing.

As of this publication, 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠.

This is not an accusation against the defendants.

It is not an accusation against the judge.

It is not an accusation against the EFCC.

It is not a declaration that anybody stole money.

It is something simpler:

𝐀 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐄𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆.

If the defendants were 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝, Nigerians should know.

If they were 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝, Nigerians should know.

If the prosecution was 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐧, Nigerians should know.

If the case was 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝, Nigerians should know.

If it 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, Nigerians should know where and before whom.

If there is a 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, Nigerians should be able to locate it.

If the EFCC 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, the public record should show when and why.

That is not persecution.

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.

If those two avenues are exhausted without producing the public records required, the lawful 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟏 process remains available. Under the Act, a request may be made to the relevant public institution for records within its custody or control.

Subject to the Act’s exemptions and procedural provisions, the institution is generally required within 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 to provide the information or give written reasons for refusing access. Where necessary, the Act also provides a route to the courts to challenge non-compliance.

𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞—𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧—𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟.

𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖𝐋𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐒 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐀𝐒𝐓?

Those who are presently responsible for the institutions involved are in the best position to acknowledge institutional failures of the past — not necessarily because they personally committed them, but because they now carry the responsibility of correcting the system.

That responsibility extends to 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬, 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 and other officials with the authority to review the record, identify where processes failed and put safeguards in place so that the same failures are not repeated.

Acknowledging the mistakes of the past is not the same as accepting personal guilt for them.

It is simply saying:

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝.
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝.
𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧.

That is how institutions learn.

That is how credibility is rebuilt.

And that is how accountability becomes more than a slogan.

𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐃𝐄𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐃𝐈𝐂𝐓. 𝐈𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐂𝐄𝐒𝐒.

The public deserves the beginning.

The public deserves the evidence.

The public deserves the defense.

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠.

For transparency, I am reproducing below the letter sent to the FCT High Court Registry.

𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐎 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐇 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐄𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘, 𝐀𝐁𝐔𝐉𝐀

The Chief Registrar
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory
Abuja, Nigeria

𝐑𝐄: 𝐑𝐄𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐂𝐄𝐃𝐔𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 — 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄 𝐍𝐎. 𝐅𝐂𝐓/𝐇𝐂/𝐂𝐑/𝟑𝟐𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖, 𝐅𝐄𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐈𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐀 𝐕. 𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐊𝐈𝐍 & 𝟐 𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐒

Dear Sir/Madam,

I respectfully write as a Nigerian citizen, former Nigerian international footballer, football historian and investigative football writer conducting public-record research into governance and financial accountability in Nigerian football.

I am seeking clarification regarding the current procedural status and, if concluded, final disposition of:

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐍𝐨. 𝐅𝐂𝐓/𝐇𝐂/𝐂𝐑/𝟑𝟐𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖
𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚 𝐯. 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧 & 𝟐 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬

According to publicly available court reporting, the defendants — 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧, 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐙𝐚𝐤𝐚 and 𝐅𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢 𝐌𝐚𝐦𝐳𝐚 — were arraigned before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖 in connection with allegations involving FIFA development funds.

The defendants 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐲.

Public reporting further indicates that the matter was heard before 𝐇𝐨𝐧. 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐎. 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧 and that, on 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎, the court declined an application by the EFCC to add 𝐀𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐮 𝐏𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐤 and 𝐃𝐫. 𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬𝐢 as defendants.

The publicly available record further indicates that proceedings involving the three original defendants were adjourned to 𝐀𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐥 𝟑𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎 for trial.

I have been unable to locate a reliable publicly accessible record showing what occurred afterward.

I would therefore respectfully request clarification, to the extent permitted by law and court procedure, on the following:

1. Whether 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐍𝐨. 𝐅𝐂𝐓/𝐇𝐂/𝐂𝐑/𝟑𝟐𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖 remains pending or has been concluded.
2. Whether proceedings took place after 𝐀𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐥 𝟑𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎.
3. Whether the case was reassigned following the elevation of 𝐇𝐨𝐧. 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐎. 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧 to the Court of Appeal in 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏.
4. If the matter was reassigned, the name of the judge or court to which it was reassigned and any subsequent suit or docket reference necessary to locate the proceedings.
5. Whether witnesses were called and evidence or exhibits received after the last publicly traceable proceedings.
6. Whether the prosecution subsequently closed its case.
7. Whether the defendants presented a defense.
8. Whether the charge was 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐧, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐮𝐭, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝 or otherwise terminated.
9. Whether any defendant was 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 or 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝.
10. Whether a 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 or other dispositive court record exists.
11. If such a record exists, the date of the decision and the procedure through which a member of the public may obtain or inspect a certified or publicly available copy.
12. If the case remains pending, its present procedural stage and, where publicly available, its next listed date.

This request is made for 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜-𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

It does not presume the guilt of any defendant or person associated with the proceedings.

The purpose is simply to establish a complete and accurate documentary chronology of a criminal prosecution that entered the public domain and to determine how that process ended, or whether it remains pending.

Where a defendant was 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝 or otherwise cleared, that outcome is as important to the public record as the original charge.

Where a prosecution was 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐧 or 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝, that too should be accurately recorded.

Where proceedings remain 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, that fact should likewise be reflected accurately.

I would be grateful for any assistance the Registry can provide in identifying the relevant docket entries, reassignment information, rulings, final orders, judgments or other publicly accessible records.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Respectfully,

𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐋𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐲 𝐎𝐤𝐨𝐤𝐮
FIFA Legend | Former Nigeria Flying Eagles Vice-Captain | Former Super Eagles International | AFCON Silver Medalist | Football Historian | Football Analyst | Investigative Football Writer | Journalist-at-Large | Founder & CEO, Greater Tomorrow Children’s Fund (GTCF)

[email protected]

𝐀𝐔𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐑’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐄

This publication is a 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜-𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲. It makes no independent accusation of criminal wrongdoing against any person named and makes no independent finding of guilt.

References to 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬, 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 and 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 are presented as reflected in publicly available court records, agency statements and contemporaneous reporting.

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐄

The research distinguishes between 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞, 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐥, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐥, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥 and other final disposition.

Those terms are not interchangeable.

In particular:

𝐀𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐮 𝐏𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬𝐢 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐍𝐨. 𝐅𝐂𝐓/𝐇𝐂/𝐂𝐑/𝟑𝟐𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖.

The original three defendants 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐲, and nothing in this publication should be interpreted as overriding their presumption of innocence.

𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐘 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐄

Public records may be incomplete, delayed, corrected, supplemented or superseded.

𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍.

𝐀𝐍 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐎𝐅 𝐆𝐔𝐈𝐋𝐓.

𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍.

Where an authoritative 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭, 𝐄𝐅𝐂𝐂 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 or other competent public authority establishes 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐥, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐥, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 or another final outcome, that outcome will be incorporated into the continuing public record with equal prominence.

Two requests have now been made:

One to the 𝐅𝐂𝐓 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲.

One to 𝐄𝐅𝐂𝐂 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐎𝐥𝐚 𝐎𝐥𝐮𝐤𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝𝐞.

𝐁𝐎𝐓𝐇 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆.

If ordinary correspondence does not produce the necessary records, the lawful 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟏 process remains available, subject to its exemptions and procedures.

For feedback, corrections, clarification or documented contributions:

[email protected]

𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐒𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐄, 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐃𝐔𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐇

Permission is expressly granted to individuals, journalists, media organizations, bloggers and digital platforms to 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞, 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞, 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 or 𝐪𝐮𝐨𝐭𝐞 this article, in whole or in part, without prior permission, for informational, educational, public-interest or promotional purposes, provided that 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐋𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐲 𝐎𝐤𝐨𝐤𝐮 as the original author and source.

The article, quotations and excerpts must be reproduced accurately and must not be 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 or presented out of context in a manner that changes the original meaning, intention or substance of the author’s work.

No person or organization may falsely attribute the article to another author, create a misleading impression regarding its origin, or use portions of the material in a way that misrepresents the position expressed in the original publication.

Where the article is republished in full, the author’s name and attribution should remain attached to the publication.

𝐎𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫: 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐋𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐲 𝐎𝐤𝐨𝐤𝐮

𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧, 𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥.