Seldom has the verdict of a foreign tribunal riveted Nigerians as the opinion of Judge Ewan Paton of the Property Tribunal, London, U.K, in respect of the ownership of No. 79 Randall Avenue, Neasden, North London. The dispute arose from the objection of one ‘Ms. Tali Shani’ to Mike Ozekhome’s application to the Land Registry in England to be registered as the owner of the property which was ostensibly transferred to him by another ‘Tali Shani’, this time, male.
So, two Tali Shanis, therefore, jointly laid claim to the same property. In the event, the judge found that neither existed as a matter of fact; in other words, their evidence was fabricated. He, therefore, ruled that the claims of both the objector to Ozekhome’s registration (Ms. Tali Shani) and that of Ozekhome himself failed.
The Tribunal also found, however, that the property was purchased by the late Gen. Jeremiah Useni way back in 1993. In its words, the General ‘was in truth the sole legal and beneficial owner of this property (albeit registered in a false name)’. The Tribunal further found (in the same portion of its judgment – Paragraph 200) that the Gen. ‘must in some way have been connected to (the) transfer (to Prof, Ozekhome) and to have directed it (as) he was clearly close to, and on good terms with the respondent’; adding for good measure that there was ‘no question of this being some sort of attempt by (Prof. Ozekhome) to steal the General’s property without his knowledge’, and furthermore (in paragraph 202) that ‘it was the decision of General Useni to transfer the property to (Prof. Ozekhome)’.
Had the tribunal stopped there, none of the fuss and dust raised by Ozekhome’s involvement would have arisen and nothing would have been amiss. However, it did not, as it held that certain evidence proffered by the Ozekhome and his son (in particular, some documents he submitted to the Land Registry such as a copy of the Nigerian passport of Mr. Tali Shani, which showed that he was born in April 1973 – 20 years before he purportedly purchased the property in 1993 and the oral testimony of the purported transferor, Mr. Tali Shani) were ‘contrived’ and ‘invented’ (Paragraph 206 of the judgment). In other words, they were perjured.
Now, giving or fabricating evidence before a judicial tribunal is a very serious offence. That is the law both in England and in Nigeria. The issue is, however, more nuanced than that – and this is where most commentators (including supposed ‘learned’ ones, i.e. legal practitioners) got it wrong. This is because they failed to grasp the elementary point that context is everything – even in a judicial proceeding and any apparently damning revelations that may emerge therefrom.
More specifically, any allegation of the commission of a crime (any crime -including perjury or forgery) is required to be established by evidence according to the applicable standard – beyond reasonable doubt. This process consists of a formal charge, plea and defence, if any. Where such a charge is denied (as it, undoubtedly is, in this case), the prosecution is required to prove, not only the conduct, act or acts and words or omissions of the defendant which are alleged to constitute the offence (called ‘actus reus’ in law) but – even more importantly – the mental element or guilty mind which accompanied such overt act or acts or with which it was contemporaneously done. In law, this is called ‘mens rea’. If it is missing, no crime is committed and the prosecution (or conviction) must fail.
That being the case, the obvious question is: what guilty mind (or malevolent or other untoward or even fraudulent intention) could possibly have informed the allegedly false evidence which Ozekhome and his son purportedly proffered before Judge Paton? What was his or their aim, goal, motive or objective? Did they intend, by such conduct or words to fraudulently ‘corner’ (to use the tribunal’s words, ‘steal General Useni’s property without his knowledge’)?
These questions were answered by the tribunal categorically and unequivocally in the negative in Paragraph 202 of its judgment. I believe this is a complete exoneration of Ozekhome and his son.
I repeat: no crime can be committed without the requisite mental element or guilty mind: where it is lacking, an accused person is innocent. In Ozekhome’s case, the worst that he can be accused of is over-exertion – borne out of over-anxiety – faced with the prospect of losing what was rightfully his, to an individual who was clearly intent in reaping where he (or she) did not sow. In other words, Ozekhome was the victim here – and no one else.
Thus, he deserves sympathy for losing what was clearly intended by the adjudged owner (Gen. Useni) to be either an outright gift or otherwise to him. He has been more sinned against than sinning. It is, therefore, strange and uncharitable that naysayers have gone to town crying for his head. Are they crying more than the bereaved?
Who, by the way, are the bereaved?
His benefactor, Gen Useni is dead (may his soul rest in peace). It is not hard to imagine that he would be turning in his grave at the needless fuss being made over his property and the unfortunate distress to which it has exposed Ozekhome. History, however, will vindicate the just. Suffice it to say that if he made any mistakes (and we all make mistakes, don’t we, being human) they were mistakes of the head – not of the heart.
I believe that Judge Paton was wrong in the legal conclusions he drew, even from the facts as found by him, in his judgment. I believe that certain legal issues arose for determination (and might still be relevant, going forward) – some of which, unfortunately, he did not advert his mind to and address – as he was legally bound to do.
I believe that public perception that the Tribunal somehow indicted Ozekhome and his son is borne out of sentiment rather than the facts – much less the law. The same can be said of Judge Paton himself – with all due respect. This is because, in Nigeria, it is settled beyond cavil that, sentiment has no place in judicial adjudication.
Neither Ozekhome nor his son can (or should) be indicted by revelations emanating from an objection (caveat) or judicial proceeding lodged or instituted at the behest of a fictitious, anonymous, faceless and bogus person. Both the caveat and the suit were non-existent in the eyes of the law. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand: it must fall, as ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing).