Stage managed Trial in a stage managed Courtroom

I am a Forty-Two year old architect born in Zimbabwe and groomed in Nigeria, I am married to a New Zealand Maori, and have a 23mth old son born in Auckland.

My ordeal started on the 30 August 2004 when a band of policemen and customs officers invaded my residence claiming that there are reasonable grounds believing that I have classA drugs at my disposal, however the search was concluded without any clue of any drugs whatsoever. Ever since I am incarceration to date though I meet all the conditions for bail as well all the condtions to be free.

Initially my Trial was set down for three weeks but the Crown prolonged it to six weeks, 16 October - 23 November 2006. At 3am, me and my wife was finally declared guilty though I was not found guilty. The Jury had no choice, they were compelled to give a counter-verdict at their disapproval. The Jury met for eleven hours without any verdict though the prosecution counsel paraded 70 witnesses, I believe this was done to create a psychological and an overwhelming influence on the Jury however the target was not achieved because the offence was malicious and framed by the police. After eleven hours, that was at 1.30am, the Jury was invited back to the courtroom and advised that it was necessary to find me and my wife guilty considering the financial inconvenience it would cost the tax payers if am declared not guilty, even at that it took the Jury extra one and half hours to reach a verdict under duress (3.00am). The expressions on the Jurors faces could tell the entire story that they were compelled to declare me and my wife guitly. Caroline Aroh was ropped in after 8 months, simply because she refused to be used against me and secondly because she wrote a petition against the police.

These were the exact procedures in the court, I have a readable proof to this effect:-

*That the prosecution witnesses were allowed to lie bluntly to the court, without restrain, eg Kayarat, Marama from the Parnell NZ-Post Office.
*The Crown who was allowed to put words in the mouth of eg Trudi Yaka's
*That mediocres were allowed to give expert evidence though there guys lacked basic education in their respective fields, they had no skill, no training, no experience and above all they lacked technical know-how, eg Miss James, Lam, Smith, Hunter (police, investigators).
*That managers who could not elucidate the the difference between 0.91 and 0.091, were allowed to give expert evidence, eg Bauckham, Kainuku etc.
*That impostors who claimed to be linguist in "Igbo" language at the London University, were allowed to give expert evidence though there is no such course in the London University for I have the current prospectus, eg Godson Echibima.
* That the original translator lives and works in New Zealand but the court allowed someone else who lives in Australia to claim he was the original translator, eg Eric Njoku.
*That for forty five minutes, a translator could not interpret a three line sentence until the english version was read to him. The reason being that the conversation was not translated literally. Yet the transcript were admissable.
*That witnesses who could not identify me were allowed to give evidence against me, eg Heather Warule.
*That the police boss who signed the warrant openly confessed that he had no knowledge of the content of the warrant, eg Allsopp-Smith (Superintendant).
*That the second in command who championed the investigation, who also claimed that Nigerians are drug peddlers' could not prove his allegations and could not convince the court yet his evience was allowed, eg Mike Beal (Sergeant).
*That an ex-customs officer, Stuart Williamson ws allowed to present a fake document to the court in which Williams had signed on behalf of the customs chief executive on the 31 October 2006, and yet Williams nolonger works for Customs.
*That the police monitors who openly confessed that they had no knowledge or skill in computers were allowed to give expert evidence, eg Hardy, Wynyard etc.
* That telephone calls that had no call data because such calls did not exist, were allowed to be used as evidence.
*The court claimed that a call data Disclosure was a forgery and yet it was given to me by a previous Counsel, Jim Boyack who recieved it from Detective Mark Rowbottom of Harlech House.
*That technically-confirmed non-existing phone numbers were allowed as having been made use of as such were given as evidence even when it is glaring that such numbers do not exist.
*That emails that were technically void, were allowed as evidence in the court.
*That Counsel, Mary Tuilotolava tenaciously terrorised my wife with intimidating emails, telling her that the evidence was overwhelming. Even, the Christian books I sent to my wife as she was a muslim was not presented by her counsel yet the books were present in court.
*When the Judge, asked if anyone had viewed the books "Mary kept silent"
* Mary Tuilotolava went down to the court cells to talk with Caroline and advised her not to view the books to the Jury.
*That instead of all mails passing through the Customs at the International-Mail Centres, this time a fake package was procured by the FedEx Manager "Denise Mc Camish" and the Customs this time collected an assumed international mail from a non-customs personnel, (what an irony). Mc Camish, evidence was accepted and she was asked to present a back up document when she suddenly said that the documents were at the headquarters in USA.
*That we are laying emphasis on the parcel which came to the backpackers on the 17 August 2004, however I have to enlighten you that instead of one parcel there were a total of five parcels involved so that even when the police saw me posting a magazine they could not arrest me until eleven days later because the magazine I posted contained no illicit substance. The police gave themselves enough time to plan their exploit, till now no finger print indentification was found.
*A parcel was delivered by DHL at 3.30pm, another was delivered at 3.37pm by FedEx, another was delievered at 3.42pm by Customs officer Teresa Anthony and yet another was undergoing thorough investigation at the customs house while the other packages were at the central backpackers.
*That though my magazine was intercepted at the postshop at 4.30pm the 20 August 2004, one Detective Dale went back to the backpackers and collected the "Target parcel" from the owner of the backpackers at 8.20pm that same day. Yet the court gave deaf ear to this evidence.
*That police deliberately did not view the central backpackers "reception video footage" thereby hiding the truth.
*That the police was allowed to give a rebutter evidence, even though its the defendant's right to give such evidence.
*That the Jury was preferred to experts in voice identification, even though its apparent that situations and circumstances can change voice sounds (identity)
*That the verdict was declared in absentia of any iota entity of Jurisprudence, Justifying any evidence or proof of guilt (it was a kangaroo court).
*That Parnell ASB, and NZ Post video footages were overwritten thereby deleting the evidence that would have set us free.
*NZ Post Representative witness, Ana Fialua was not summoned to give evidence thereby keeping the truth hidden from the Jury.
*Mary Tuilotolava, closing address helped the Court declare me, and wife guilty.
*That my wife and I were robbed of our rights by the courts.

What my Lawyer Nigel Cooke did not ask the witness, Detective Mark Rowbottom during Trial and knowingly Corruption was involved from beginning to end and was afraid to expose the Police.

*That a stungun was used on 2 occassions by Customs officer "Richard Carr" while Detective Mark Rowbottom looked on.
*That Detective Mark Rowbottom called me a "Black Cunt" you earn more money than me in my country.

Mr Nigel Cooke is a brilliant Lawyer, unlike Mary Tuilotolava she is a disgrace to the legal fraternity.

In my opinion and other civilised people, my Trial was stage-managed, it was more or less a sharia system of court whereby the accused is meant to be seen and not to be heard. That Justice was denied in all ramifications, that it was an orchestrated legal endeavour designed to demonstrate persecution and oppression against the poor and helpless as well as foreignors. My Trial made history, and yet there was no media coverage which indicates that the courts are hiding the truth from the public.