Abuja Bombing: Henry Okah Accuses S/African Officials Of Obstructing Fresh Court Application

Nigerian former militant, Henry Emomotimi Okah, who is serving a 24-year prison sentence in South Africa over the October 1, 2010 Independence Day bombings in Abuja, has accused court officials of frustrating his attempt to file an urgent constitutional application seeking the correction of his trial record.

According to Sahara Reporters, Okah alleged that the disputed portion of the record subsequently became crucial to the dismissal of his final appeal by South Africa’s Constitutional Court.

Court documents indicate that Okah, who is being held at the Zonderwater Maximum Correctional Centre in Cullinan, Pretoria, has been attempting to get the South Gauteng High Court to accept an application brought under Section 173 of the South African Constitution.

The provision gives superior courts inherent powers to protect and regulate their own processes and develop the common law in the interests of justice.

Okah, who said he lacked the funds to engage legal counsel, has been representing himself.

Separately, his brother alleged that the inmate was assaulted and transferred to solitary confinement on Monday in an attempt to prevent him from pursuing the application.

The brother further alleged that the action was intended to prevent Okah from challenging efforts by the South African Revenue Service to seize his property.

The allegations could not be independently verified.

Okah was convicted by the South Gauteng High Court on January 21, 2013, on terrorism, conspiracy and related charges arising from the twin car bombings in Abuja during Nigeria’s 50th Independence anniversary celebrations.

His subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court were unsuccessful, with the latter delivering its final judgment on February 23, 2018.

Okah’s latest application centres on what he describes as a contradiction between two decisions of the trial court concerning efforts to secure defence witnesses from Nigeria.

According to the documents, the trial court, in an ex tempore ruling delivered on November 21, 2012, referred to “a lack of cooperation from the side of the Nigerian government.”

It also stated that obstacles surrounding a request to secure the witnesses indicated that “the problems are almost insurmountable.”

However, Okah contends that the court’s subsequent written judgment of March 20, 2013, attributed the absence of the witnesses to his own “clear and unqualified election” not to call them and concluded that “no irregularity occurred.”

Okah argued that the difference became significant when the Constitutional Court relied on part of the 2013 judgment in dismissing his appeal.

His court papers quoted paragraph 89 of the Constitutional Court judgment as stating, “The clincher is this. The trial court found that Mr Okah did in fact receive some assistance from Nigerian authorities. These findings of fact were not challenged before us… And it is wholly unpersuasive.”

Okah maintained that he was not attempting to reopen his conviction or challenge his sentence through the new application.

“The Applicant does not seek to appeal against, review, or rescind any judgment of this Court or of the Constitutional Court,” his Heads of Argument stated.

“The limited relief sought is the correction of the record of this Court to reflect accurately what was placed before it.”

Documents provided in support of Okah’s claim showed that an attempt to submit the application electronically through the court’s CaseLines system on July 30 was rejected.

The rejection notice reportedly instructed that “all inmate application should be brought over to the counter in office 002.”

Okah said his representative consequently took the documents to Office 002 of the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg on August 6.

He alleged that a registrar identified as Malvin Moila refused to accept or stamp the application and did not provide written reasons.

According to Okah, he was subsequently informed verbally that the case had become a civil matter and that the Minister of Justice and Registrar of the Constitutional Court would have to be joined as respondents.

Okah rejected that position, arguing in his papers that the application remained connected to the original criminal case and was “properly brought in the criminal matter SS94/11 against THE STATE.”

Following the dispute, Okah wrote to the Criminal Registrar on August 7 requesting that the application be accepted.

He subsequently wrote to Deputy Judge President R. Sutherland on August 10 seeking urgent intervention to “compel acceptance and enrolment” of the case.

A practice note included in the documents indicated that the application had been listed for the urgent roll on August 11.

In a separate letter dated July 5, Okah also requested that the Deputy Judge President sign, nunc pro tunc, the November 2012 ruling, which he claimed remained unsigned.

He argued that certification was necessary to enable him to present the document in separate proceedings he said he had instituted before the ECOWAS Court of Justice.

Meanwhile, Okah’s brother alleged that the former militant was assaulted and forcibly placed in solitary confinement while pursuing the legal action.

He claimed the action was intended to frustrate both Okah’s court proceedings and his ability to challenge moves concerning his property.

“The registrar tried to deceive him into filing a wrong application, and when he refused, this happened,” the brother alleged.

He further claimed prison authorities were relying on an allegation that a mobile phone had been found in Okah’s possession about a month earlier to justify the action.