The Federal High Court in Lagos has directed Emirates Airlines and four airport officials to open their defence in a $1.63 million theft charged filed against them by the Federal Government.
Justice Mohammed Idris dismissed the no-case submission filed by the airline and Abayomi Abiola, Isiaka Adedeji, Awonubi Abayomi and George Ikpekhia.
He also dismissed the no-case submission made by two companies named in the charge – Pathfinder International Ltd and Nigeria Aviation Handling Company Plc.
They were charged in 2009 with alleged theft of $1.63million belonging to a businessman, Prince Ikem Orji.
The Federal Government alleged that the defendants conspired among themselves to steal the money while pretending that they would help him deliver it to him at Ghuangzhou, China.
The defendants were said to have committed the offence on December 19, 2007 at the Murtala Muhammed Airport, Ikeja, Lagos.
The four airport officials also charged with “failure to report an international transfer of the sum of $1.63million belonging to Prince Chu Ikem Orji, a sum above $10,000 required to be reported to the Central Bank of Nigeria by virtue of Section 2 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act”.
The alleged offence is contrary to Section 390(9) of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and punishable under Section 422.
The four officials were alleged to have violated Section 15(1)(e) of the Money Laundering Act Cap N30, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, punishable under Section 15(2)(b) and (3).
The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge, following which the prosecution opened its case, calling three witnesses and tendering some exhibits.
When the prosecution closed its case last October 18, the defendants filed no-case submissions rather that opening their defence.
They argued that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against them and urged the court to dismiss the charge.
Ruling, Justice Idris held that the defendants have some explanations to give.
“The prosecution called witnesses and tendered a number of exhibits, which I have thoroughly examined. Going through the evidence of these witnesses, it appears that if taken as unchallenged and uncontroverted, some link might be established between the defendants and some of the content of exhibits A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5.
“For the reasons contained herein, I am of the view that the defendants have some explanations to make. The no-case submission is, therefore, overruled.”
Justice Idris adjourned until June 21, 22 and 23.