Aftermath 2015 Election; Investors return to Nigeria

By Ayo Fadimu

Many of the investors that left Nigeria in the run up to the last general election have returned back to the country, investigation by West African Business News has revealed. The anxiety over the outcome of the 2015 elections had made many of the foreign investors fled the country to their home country while many simply shifted base.

The Spokesman of Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) Dati Yakubu confirmed that there had been increment in the passengers making use of the Airports across the country. However, he did not specify if they are foreign investors. According to Yakubu, “There has been increment in passenger traffic in Nigerian Airports as corroborated by Nigerian Bureau of Statistics”

An investigation carried out West Africa Business News few days to the election revealed that  some of the foreign airlines operating into Muritala Muhammed International Airport such as Emirates, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Etihad, Emirates, South African Airways, Kenya Airlines, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ethiopian airlines and the only Nigerian Airline that ply international route, Arik Airline enjoyed large passenger traffic as many investors, expatriates and even wealthy Nigerians fled the country so as not to fall victim to the violence which many, including United States predicted would be the aftermath of the election

A visit to some industries in Ilupeju Industrial Estate, Oregun Industrial Estate,both in Lagos State and Agbara Industrial Estate in Ogun State revealed that many of the foreign Directors, expatriates and workers have returned to Nigeria.
Although two of the spokesmen of multinational companies who spoke to West Africa Business News under anonymity denied that the journey of their foreign Directors was because of fear over the election, they did not respond to question on the reason they returned the election was seen to be peaceful without any bloody aftermath.
“Let’s thank God it was peaceful, they cannot remain in their country forever because this is where their investment is and many Nigerians are also benefitting from their investments in this country” he said.
According to Nigerian Stock Exchange, the fear of the outcome of the poll resulted in foreign investors pulling N846.53 billion from the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) in 2014.
The figure represents 65.7 per cent increase on the N510.78 billion foreign portfolio investment outflow from the stock market in the corresponding period of 2013.
The NSE polls trading figures from major custodians and market operators on their Foreign Portfolio Investments (FPI).
On the contrary, total foreign inflow in 2014 was up 30.32 percent to 692.39 billion from N531.26 billion in 2013.
According to NSE, total transactions at the nation’s bourse increased by 41.83 per cent from N181.97 billion recorded in January to N258.08 billion in December 2014.
According to capital market analysts, the exit of foreign investors from the equities market was a major reason for its poor performance in 2014 during which the market closed with a negative return of 16.14 per cent.
They noted that foreign investors were exiting the Nigerian stock market due to the falling global oil prices, activities of insurgents in the north east of Nigeria, the fear of the outcome of 2015 general elections and the devaluation of the naira.
NSE chief executive officer, Mr. Oscar Onyema, confirmed that the outflow was a major factor in the poor performance of the market.
“In the capital market, bearish sentiments prevailed for most of the year as foreign investors steadily withdrew from the Nigerian market due to currency risk and the recovery of developed economies, and the effects of the US Federal Reserve tapering off its quantitative easing policy,” Onyema said.

However, following the announcement of the General Muhammadu Buhari as the President elect, the NSE ASI went up by 2,635.32 basis points or 8.30 per cent from 34,380.14 to 31,744.82 basis points. Similarly, the market capitalisation of the listed equities appreciated by N903 billion from N11.621 trillion to N10.718 trillion, the value of the naira got a boost at the black market where it sold between N203 and 207 to the dollar. A black market dealer told West Africa Business News in Lagos that the value of the naira had been on an upward swing since the completion of the election.

In the meantime, the Lagos Chambers of Commerce and Industries had expressed hope that the economy will pick up after the successful completion of the 2015 general elections although INEC had declared elections in three states, Abia, Imo and Taraba as inconclusive.

The Director General of the Chambers, Muda Yusuf said, “We want the President-elect to start action immediately he is sworn-in so as to restore the investor’s confidence in the economy, we have met him in the course of his campaign and tabled before him the challenges facing the public sector and we hope that he attends to them”.

Nokia aims to become networks giant with Alcatel-Lucent deal

Nokia has agreed to buy the ailing French telecom company Alcatel-Lucent through a public exchange of shares in France and the United States, in a bid to become a leading global networks operator.

Though Alcatel-Lucent has been racking up billions of euros of losses since its creation in 2006, Nokia seems to believe it can cut costs and hopes the deal will give it scale in the market of providing the networks that mobile phones use.

The Finnish company said Wednesday that the all-share transaction will be on the basis of 0.55 of a new Nokia share for every share of Alcatel-Lucent. The share offer values the French concern at 15.6 billion euros ($16.5 billion).

Nokia stock was up 1.5 percent at 7.60 euros in early trading in Helsinki while Alcatel-Lucent plunged more than 12 percent in Paris.

Mikko Ervasti, analyst at Evli Bank in Helsinki, said the deal puts Nokia among the global market leaders in networks.

"Nokia is clearly focusing on its networks operations and this acquisition makes it a big enough player to clearly challenge Ericsson, perhaps even in several sectors," he said.

According to the deal, Alcatel-Lucent shareholders would own 33.5 percent of the fully diluted share capital of the combined company, with Nokia shareholders owning 66.5 percent, Nokia said.

The acquisition has been approved by each company's board of directors and is expected to close in 2016 subject to regulatory and other approvals, including from shareholders.

The combined company, known as Nokia Corp., will be based in Finland with "a strong presence in France," Nokia said.

Nokia CEO Rajeev Suri was upbeat on the takeover, saying he firmly believes it is "the right deal, with the right logic, at the right time."

But analysts warned that their operations crossed over in some areas and the merger likely would cause layoffs and cuts.

Ervasti described Alcatel-Lucent as a "sprawling" concern, and said Nokia might have to shed some operations.

"I think Nokia was interested in certain sectors of the company and had to bend over and make an offer for the whole lot," he said.

Nokia said it aims to make savings of 900 million euros in "operating cost synergies" by 2019 and some 200 million euros reductions in interest expenses, to be achieved on a full year basis in 2017.

Alcatel-Lucent CEO Michel Combes admitted a "pang of sadness in the heart" at the demise of the Alcatel brand, but defended the deal as focusing on "development and growth."

"We had difficult periods, but now we are one of the building bricks for what will become a global technology giant," he said on France's Europe-1 radio. "Nokia is becoming today the leader of telecommunications networks thanks to Alcatel-Lucent."

Combes also said that they are committed to keeping job levels the same in France and that the project would include 500 more research and development jobs in France.

Both companies' chief executives had met with French President Francois Hollande briefly on Tuesday afternoon, and the French government said it would support the deal.

Nokia, which began as a maker of paper and gum boots in 1865, transformed into a home electronics firm before becoming an innovator in the wireless industry and the world's top cellphone maker. But it met its match when Apple launched the iPhone and also was unable to compete against Google Inc.'s Android operating system and cheaper handsets from Asia.

It has made a turnaround since the 5.4 billion-euro sale of the lossmaking handset business to Microsoft a year ago, with three remaining sectors: networks, HERE mapping services and technologies and patents.

Nokia said Wednesday it is looking into the potential divestment of its HERE business, but gave no details.

Alcatel-Lucent, which has undergone repeated rounds of restructuring since the 2006 merger of France's Alcatel and U.S.-based Lucent Technologies, is laying off more than 10,000 workers and last year made a net loss of 118 million euros.

In the meantime, Alcatel-Lucent Chief Executive Michel Combes said Nokia's was initially interested in buying only the French group's mobile business, but he rejected that as not assuring the long-term viability of the group.

Instead Combes pushed Nokia to make a bid for the entirety of Alcatel-Lucent and obtained an all-share takeover unveiled on Wednesday.

"Nokia approached us about mobile and I judged that this was not the best solution for the group and its future," he said.

"With the advent of 5G in the next decade, telecom vendors need to be present in all parts of the mobile business: the base station, backhaul and Internet routers," he explained.

Alcatel would have been too small, specialised, and vulnerable if it had sold off the wireless business, which accounted for almost a third of sales last year.

Combes also hinted that he would not serve as the vice-chairman of Nokia after the Alcatel-Lucent sale was completed. That seat has been set aside for a representative of the French group.

Alcatel-Lucent's undersea cable business, which builds and installs such key infrastructure underpinning the global Internet, will not be sold to Nokia, the CEO said.

Instead it will be spun off either as a private company or floated in an initial public offering.

Similarly, Finnish network gear maker Nokia's acquisition of rival Alcatel-Lucent is likely to lead to some layoffs at the French telecom equipment maker's India unit, mostly employees in marketing and sales and possibly some research & development staff, people familiar with the matter said.

"There are major overlaps surrounding the wireless infrastructure business line and minimal overlaps in other verticals, which would lead to some lay-offs in the country," one person told ET.

A second person said the sales team is spread across six-seven key accounts where there's an overlap with Nokia Networks in India.

"Nokia is much more embedded in Airtel, Vodafone and Idea Cellular," the second person said, adding that mid- to senior-level employees may bear the brunt of any layoffs in India.

The first person said Nokia has a big R&D set-up in India and it is likely that Alcatel-Lucent's India R&D would be affected. "Chennai R&D centre which works on the fixed networks space would get an impact but not because of the merger primarily, but due to the market situation," he added. 
Alcatel-Lucent has some 100 salespeople in India and about 2,500 engineers and scientists working at R&D labs in three cities - Gurgaon, Chennai and Bengaluru. The company declined to comment on the impact of the merger or on its employee base.

Nokia also declined to comment beyond the acquisition announcement.

Nokia announced its purchase of Alcatel-Lucent on Wednesday in an all-stock deal at a valuation of $16.6 billion. The Finnish company is trying to scale up to compete against leader Ericsson and strong rival Huawei. 
Nokia chief executive Rajeev Suri, who will head the combined entity, said there the global headcount would be affected due to rationalisation.

The second person said that where there are overlaps, Nokia has much more stable products in the market and that would probably take more relevance.

Alcatel-Lucent India has primarily been in the CDMA business and is not so relevant for 2G and 3G technologies. Additionally, its business has been shrinking because of fewer contracts in the Indian market, a result of intense competition from Ericsson, Huawei and Nokia.

"Alcatel-Lucent has lost a lot of ground in India. Over last one year, the business plunged around 50-60%," the second person said. 
Alcatel-Lucent lost big network contracts from Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communication last year. Reliance Jio didn't give it any new order after the contract for backbone deals which was signed in the first quarter of 2014 and went with Juniper Networks for the IP segment instead of Alcatel.

In April last year, Munish Seth, president & managing director of Alcatel-Lucent India, resigned during a global restructuring exercise, with Srini Sundarajan taking charge as the company's head in the country.

The person added that employees working in areas such as IP and optics would not face any issue as Nokia doesn't have any bigger play in this space.

For IP and optics, Nokia used to take services and solutions from partners such as Cisco. The acquisition will provide these solutions in-house and strengthen its footprint in markets such as the US. 

A headhunter familiar with the merger said attrition has been fairly high at Alcatel-Lucent and people across levels have been looking out. There had been restructuring at the senior levels after Seth moved out and many senior-level people came in after Sundarajan joined as managing director last year.

Furthermore, Nokia has said that it has initiated a review of strategic options, including a potential divestment, for its mapping business, HERE.

HERE is a provider of navigation, mapping and location intelligence services. The company has also announced a proposed combination with Alcatel-Lucent.

The Board of Directors of Nokia believes this is the right moment to assess the position of HERE within the proposed new Nokia business. 

On the deal, Alcatel-Lucent Chief Executive Michel Combes said he expected Nokia's purchase of Alcatel to force competitors to reexamine their product portfolios.

"Global operators have all made the shift to converge fixed and mobile, and now equipment makers will have to follow suit," Combes said, adding that he expected Sweden's Ericsson would likely have to reexamine its product line to beef up its fixed broadband business.

Ericsson's stronghold has traditionally been the mobile base station or towers that cover large territories, and it has not been a big player in fixed broadband technologies where Alcatel has been strong.

With the advent of high speed mobile Internet and the rise of smartphones, the distinction between mobile and fixed networks is disappearing.

Alcatel and Nokia are betting that the French company's strength in fixed broadband and Internet routing paired with Nokia's additional bulk in mobile will set the combined group on a firmer footing than competitors.

Ojudu, Omirin, APC lawmakers quarrel over Fayose's N250m impeachment largesse

All is not well among the impeached former Speaker of Ekiti State
House of Assembly, Dr Adewale Omirin, Senator Babafemi Ojudu, who is
the arrowhead of the plot to impeach Governor Ayodele Fayose and his
Deputy, Dr. Olusola Eleka, and some of the APC lawmakers as questions
are now being asked on the spending of about N250m million allegedly
released for the impeachment project.

Sources very close to Omirin disclosed that the embattled former
Speaker was already complaining about the way and manner fund was
being raised by Senator Ojudu without the knowledge of the lawmakers.

One of the sources said Omirin had demanded explanations from Ojudu
over a sum of N250 million allegedly gotten from the Osun State
Governor, Mr Rauf Aregbesola, but Ojudu could not offer any.

"14 of the APC lawmakers who are committed to the impeachment project
were to get N8 million each while Omirin was supposed to be given N15
million.

"However, only N2 million was given to each of the lawmakers while
Omirin got N5 million  and tongues are now wagging as to how the
balance of N227 million was spent," the source said.

Another source said some of the lawmakers are already getting tired of
fighting on, preferring to work towards getting their outstanding
entitlements and severance allowance before their tenure ends in June.

The lawmakers are said to be of the view that those used by Ojudu to
remove Fayose from office in 2006 never benefitted anything at the end
of the day.

"They are now reminding themselves of how Ojudu made millions from the
Fayose impeachment in 2006 and how none of the lawmakers used then
benefitted anything," the source said.

Also, Omirin is said not to be too comfortable with Senator Ojudu's
ambition to be governor, believing that it will be a direct support
for Ojudu's ongoing plot to wrestle  the leadership of the APC in
Ekiti State from former Governor Kayode Fayemi.

Already, Ojudu is financing a group within the Ekiti APC called Action Group.

Said a source; "One of the reasons the impeachment project has not
succeeded is Ojudu's governorship ambition. Ojudu wants the
governorship while House of Representatives member and Labour Party
governorship candidate, Hon Opeyemi Bamidele is also working behind
the scene to upstage Ojudu should Fayose be impeached.

"Fayemi, on his own part does not want both Ojudu and Opeyemi
Bamidele.  He will rather recontest or support another candidate."

RE: MAN INDICTED IN US FOR DRUG DEAL ELECTED SENATOR IN NIGERIA BY BURUJ KASHAMU

1. My attention has been drawn to a syndicated report by Associated Press (AP) entitled “A man indicted in US for drug deal elected senator in Nigeria”.
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.
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
16th April, 2015.

Bottom of Form