American Court Insists Kashamu Buruji Is A Fugitive Wanted For Drug Charge Prosecution ...Says 'I will fight till I get justice'

Deep pocket and very visible member of ruling political party, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Kashamu Buruji is back in the eye of the storm.

The United States of American court entertaining drug charges against him insists, he has a case to answer.

Here are details of the latest twist in the unfolding saga and Kashamu's reaction.

A United States of America’s Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit  sitting at Illinois on Wednesday declared a Peoples Democratic Party’s chieftain, Buruji Kashamu‎ a fugitive wanted in America for trial for allegedly importing drug to the country.

  Delivering his judgment in an application by Kashamu for a Writ of Mandamus, Justice Charles R. Norgle declined his request to quash an indictment issued him on the basis that it was out of time.

But the court held that the indictment against Lasham had no expiration date.

  The court held that, “Should he ever come to the United States, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, he could be put on trial in the federal district court in Chicago, since the indictment has no expiration date.

   “An original indictment remains pending until it is dismissed or until double jeopardy or due process would forbid prosecution under it.” 

  Kashamu, a dual citizen of Nigeria and Benin, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Chicago, along with thirteen other persons, with conspiracy to import heroin into the United States and distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. 

  The US government believed that Kashamu was the leader of the conspirators.

  He was indicted both in his own name and under what the government believed to be two aliases that he used: “Alaji”‎ and “Kasmal”.

  Based on the refusal of a magistrate in the United Kingdom to grant a request by the US to extradite him, Kashamu filed an application in the US seeking to nullify his indictment.

  The UK Magistrate had declined to grant the application to extradite Kashamu on the ground that the US did not conclusively prove that he was the same Alaji wanted in the US for trial.

  The court held that eleven eleven other defendants indicted alongside Kashamu pleaded guilty, one proceeded to trial and was convicted, and another could not be found and remained a fugitive. 

 The court frowned at the fact that despite knowing that he was wanted in the US, ‘Kashamu remains in Nigeria, living openly, a prominent businessman and a politician belonging to the ruling party.’

  The court wondered that, “although the United States had an extradition treaty with Nigeria, our government has made no effort to extradite him.”

  While asking him to buy a flight ticket to US to come and stand trial, the court said:‎ “There was a good deal of evidence against him. We noted in our previous opinion that among other bits of evidence, “Kashamu’s codefendants who had pleaded guilty had admitted their participation in the charged conspiracy and identified ‘Alaji’ as the leader of the conspiracy. Two of them identified Kashamu as Alaji in a photographic lineup, and in the extradition proceeding the government submitted their affidavits to that effect. ‎”

  In opposing the petition for mandamus the Justice Department had told the court that “the prospects for extradition (from Nigeria) have recently improved and, as a result, the government is optimistic about extraditing Kashamu.” 

  The court held that Kashamu’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him was premature, ‘as he may soon find himself in the district court in Chicago, able to present a fuller case that his right to a speedy trial is being violated.’

  The court however noted that it might be difficult to extradite him because be was a very influential person in Nigeria.

  “Given Kashamu’s prominence in Nigerian business and government circles, and the English magistrate’s findings and conclusion, the probability of extradition may actually be low‎”, the court held.

   Kashamu had argued the threat to extradite him had prevented him from traveling outside Nigeria lest the United States seek extradition of him from another country, as it did albeit unsuccessfully when it found him in the United Kingdom. 

  He also claimed that the outstanding indictment had besmirched his reputation and by doing so had impeded his business and political ambitions in Nigeria. 

  But the court held that, “These are reasonable concerns, but do not support the relief that he seeks from us. 

  “He was indicted 16 years ago. At any time during this long interval he had only to show up in the federal district court in Chicago to obtain a determination of his guilt or innocence. 

  “When a suspected criminal flees from imminent prosecution, becoming a fugitive before he is indicted, the statute of limitations on prosecuting him is suspended. 

  “Similarly, when a defendant flees the country to escape justice, the inference is that he didn’t want a speedy trial—he wanted no trial. And if he doesn’t want a speedy trial, he can’t complain that the judiciary didn’t give him one.‎”

  The court found that the indictment against him to be very serious criminal charges.

  The court noted that  one of Kashamu’s co defendants was sentenced to 10 years in prison. 

  The judge said: “If Kashamu was indeed the ringleader of the drug conspiracy, as he may have been, he might if convicted be given an even heavier sentence—quite possibly a life sentence; 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(A), authorizes a life sentence for a conspiracy to import at least a kilogram of heroin.

  “If he wants to fight the charges, he has only to fly from Lagos to Chicago; there are loads of reasonably priced flights. 

  “How then can he argue with a straight face that the failure of the United States to extradite him entitles him to dismissal of the charges? He can’t; and the petition for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied.”

  But yesterday, Kashamu in a statement entitled, “I’ll fight till i get justice,” said: I wish to provide an update to Nigerians on my efforts to obtain justice within the U.S. judicial system in regard to the falseindictment made against me in the U.S. Courts, which theBritishcourts have cleared me from unequivocally.

   “As many may recall I had to take the battle to the U.S. authorities in their own country because, despite the British judgment and the defeats they have suffered in their attempts too place a false accusation on me they have neither attempted to extradite me again nor withdrawn the charges.

   “My first attack on the indictment: I had in 2009 attacked the unjustifiable indictment retained made against me on the basis that the English Judiciary, which the U.S. authorities had themselves instigated against me, had exonerated me. In that application to dismiss the indictment I requested that the findings and Conclusions of District Judge Tim Workman of the Bow Street Magistrates Court in London, be given collateral estoppel status by the U.S. court and his findings and conclusions be made conclusive on the issue of whether or not I was a party to the alleged crime.

    “District Judge Norgle before whom the indictment was pending refused the application after ruling that I was not a fugitive from justice in the U.S. I appealed against Norgle’s decision refusing to dismiss the indictment to the U.S 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel led by Judge Posner a well-respected judge in the U.S. judicial system agreed with the District Judge.

    “In his judgment then, Judge Posner had made some wide-ranging generalized statements, which were not borne out by the records. However, as the Supreme Court of the U.S. rarely takes an appeal that complains merely about findings of fact, the Supreme Court did not hear my appeal from that judgment.

  In that judgment Judge Posner held that the decision of the English Courts were not equivalent to that of the U.S. courts and so could not be regarded as binding on the U.S. courts.

    However, as the lawyers noted, U.S. courts expect their judgments to be treated better by foreign courts.

   “My second attack on the indictment: This update is about my second attempt to dismiss this indictment. This second attempt was based on my contention that the indictment pending before Judge Norgle has now expired by effluxion of time by reason of the Speedy trial requirement of U.S. constitutional and criminal law and was consequently statute barred. Many cases in the U.S. in which prosecution had not started after 5 years of the charge have been dismissed for this reason.

    “Judge Norgle had rejected the application.I therefore applied to the U.S. 7th circuit Court of Appeals for an order of mandamus directing the District Judge to dismiss the indictment. udgment was delivered on the 15th of September 2014 by the Court of Appeals in respect of that application for mandamus.

    “Judge Posner delivered the leading judgment of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals again.”

    “My comments on the new court of appeals judgment: I have several complaints against that judgment and my lawyers are exploring the opportunities available for appeal.

  “However before my political adversaries begin the usual perversion of truth I wish to make the following comments on the judgment for the records.

    •Again Mr. Posner has ignored the facts on record and the findings of the English Courts in coming to his conclusions that: 

I have no rights under the American Constitution because I have never been in the United States and “ it would be very odd that someone with so attenuated a connection to the United States would have rights under the US Constitution”.

“But no matter; even if the government is incorrect and Kashamu does have constitutional rights, he still loses, because they haven’t been violated”.

   • Posner wrongly finds that only two options are available to me:

The first is to “return” to the U.S. and “stand trial and at the trial renew his motion for dismissal on the basis of the speedy trial clause”

The second “is to obtain from us, as he is trying to do, a writ of mandamus ordering the District court to dismiss the indictment”.

    According to Kashamu, “these wrong conclusions” “create a scenario of a stalemate between me and the U.S authorities whereby he posits that I will not come to the U.S. to fall into the clutches of the U.S. judiciary and that the U.S. authorities in turn have little hope of ever extraditing me to the U.S in view of my prominence in Nigeria and the findings of the British Courts. Thus he then surmises: “as he won’t risk the first path to relief, which would require him to come to the United States and fall into the clutches of the federal judiciary, he must rely entirely on mandamus”

  “He then proceeds to reject the application for mandamus for the reason that I have not come to the U.S. to “face the judicial music.”

   “Judge Posner then expresses his disbelief in    the U.S. Government’s statement, in response to my application, that it has now found the atmosphere in Nigeria more favourable for my extradition to the U.S. and responds to their vaunted optimism as follows:

  “But the government may be whistling in the dark in saying that its optimistic about being able to extradite him from Nigeria (no doubt it was optimistic about being able to extradite him from the United Kingdom). The proof of the pudding is in the eating: the government has not tried to extradite Kashamu from Nigeria and for all we know may be feigning “optimism” in order to undermine Kashamu’s claim that the threat of extradition is a sword of Damocles disrupting his life without our government’s having to undergo the expense and uncertainty of seeking extradition of a foreign big shot exonerated (though only partly) by the judiciary of our British ally.  Given Kashamu’s prominence in Nigerian business and government circles, and the English Magistrate’s findings and conclusion, the probability of extradition may actually be low.

    “ Judge Posner in conclusion, for the above reason, finds in favour of the U.S. government, that it has no duty to attempt any extradition of any suspect charged for an offence in the U.S. since all it need do is to inform that suspect that a charge has been made against him in the U.S. and that suspect thereupon becomes duty bound to take the next plane to the U.S. at his own expense to challenge the charge and prove his innocence.”