EFCC arraigns Ogun speaker, two others

Ogun Speaker

A Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday remanded the Speaker of the Ogun State House of Assembly, Olakunle Oluomo, pending his satisfaction of N300million bail bond.

Justice Daniel Osiagor made the order following Oluomo’s arraignment by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for an alleged N2.475 billion money laundering and forgery charge.

The judge also granted bail to the Director of Finance at the House, Oladayo Samuel and the Clerk, Taiwo Adeyemo, who were arraigned alongside Oluomo’s co-defendants on the same charge.

The trio pleaded not guilty to the 11-count charge preferred against them by EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo.

The court granted 1st defendant Oluomo N300 million bail with two sureties in the like sum, one of whom must not be lower than a level 16 civil servant in the federal civil service.

Samuel and Adeyemo – 2nd and 3rd defendants – were admitted to bail in the sum of N100million each with two sureties each, one of whom must not be lower than level 14 in the civil service.

All sureties must possess landed properties within the court’s jurisdiction and the title documents are to be deposited with the court’s registrar.

The sureties must also possess three-year tax clearance certificates and swear to an affidavit of means.

Defendants are to also deposit their travel documents in the court’s registry.

The court also ordered that the defendants be remanded in the EFCC custody for a maximum of one week, within which they were expected to perfect their bail conditions.

The three defendants were separately represented by Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), Akinyemi Aremu and Oluwole Aladedoye.

They are accused of allegedly laundering Ogun State funds totalling more than N2.465 billion.

The fourth defendant, Adeyanju Nimota Amoke, is said to be at large.

They were all said to have some time in 2019 in the state capital, Abeokuta, conspired to launder the funds from the treasury of the Ogun State House of Assembly.

The alleged offence was said to be contrary to sections 18 (a), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011 as amended and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act.

 

 

 

More posts