The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Rotimi Oyedepo

  • EFCC arraigns oil marketers for alleged diversion, theft of N1.042billion

    An Ikeja high court heard Monday how two oil marketers, David Nwachukwu, Frank Okeke allegedly diverted N1.042billion meant for rentals accrued to a leasing company and haulage services of three companies for personal use.

    Nwachukwu and Okeke are facing a 14 count charges bordering on conspiracy, stealing contrary to section 409 and punishable under 281(1) of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State 2011 preferred against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before Justice Raliat Adebiyi.

    They were arraigned before the court alongside their companies, Haulage Oil and Gas and Franviok Limited.

    The defendants were also charged for retention of proceeds of criminal conduct contrary to Section 17 (b) of the EFCC (establishment) Act, 2004.

    Read Also:Oil marketers canvass for total deregulation of petroleum downstream sub-sector

    Led in evidence by the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, a witness of the commission, Orji Chukwuma told the court that a petition, written by Leasing Company of Nigeria Limited  (now LECON financial Service Limited) over alleged diversion of funds was assigned to his team to investigate.

    He said, “Upon receiving the petition, a lot of investigations were carried out. We investigated staff of Total Plc, LECON, Bank of Industry. We recovered some documents such as internal memo. Some of the people we interrogated made statements. I came across one Bassy Effiong, we interviewed him on the product he sold.

    “We also invited OANDO in the cause of investigation and there was exchange of correspondents. Forte Oil, Eternal Plc also gave us their statement and the agreement between the Eternal Plc with the third defendant”, he added.

    Oyedepo asked the court to admit the documents in evidence.

    The court granted his request and admitted a letter dated March 27, 2015 written by Eternal Plc to the Head of Operation, EFCC and another written by Forte Oil to EFCC among other documents as exhibit p1 to p36.

    Justice Adebiyi subsequently adjourned further hearing till October 2, 2018.

    Nwachukwu,  Okeke and their companies were alleged to have sometimes between November 2011 and September 2014, with dishonest intent converted to their own use a total sum of N1,042,810, 463.54, which formed part of rentals accrued to Leasing Company of Nigeria Limited (now LECON financial Service Limited).

    The money, the anti-graft agency said was for the use of their truck to provide haulage services for Eternal Oil Plc, Lafarge Cement Wapco Nigeria Plc and also for the use of Mack Trucks in their fleets to provide haulage services for Total Nigeria Plc and Forte Oil Plc.

  • Money Laundering: Court dismisses SAN’s, ex-minister’s no-case submissions

    The Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday dismissed a no-case submission made by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr Dele Belgore in a money laundering charge brought against him and a former National Planning Minister Prof Abubakar Suleiman.

    Justice Rilwan Aikawa held that they had a case to answer.

    He directed them to open their defence.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accused them of money laundering.

    Former Petroleum Resources Minister Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke is also named in the charge.

    EFCC said she is “at large”.

    Belgore and Suleiman, through their counsel Mr Ebun Shofunde and Tunji Ayanlaja, both SANs, said the prosecution did not make out a prima facie case against them.

    Suleiman aligned himself with Belgore’s no-case submission, urging the court to discharge and acquit them.

    But EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo urged the court to dismiss the no case submission.

    He said: “Our case against the defendants is that they failed to follow the statutory banking procedure. The defendants by their status cannot say that they don’t know what conventional banking procedure is all about. They ought to be called upon to explain why they took possession of proceeds of unlawful activities.

    “The evidence of the second prosecution witness, Usman Zakari, is not hearsay because he narrated what transpired during investigation of the case and this was corroborated by other documents, witness’ evidence and the unequivocal admission of the first defendant (Belgore)”.

    Ruling, Justice Aikawa upheld the prosecution’s arguments, agreeing that a prima-facie case had been made out against the defendants.

    “Consequently, I hereby overrule the no-case submission made by the learned senior advocate. The first and second defendants may therefore wish to enter their defence,” he held.

    After the ruling, defence counsel Seni Adio (SAN), who stood in for Shofunde, said he had a pending application dated January 16 in which Belgore is praying the court to order the EFCC to produce all the statements he made.

    But Oyedepo argued that the prosecution tendered all the statements Belgore made and had closed its case.

    “All the statements were frontloaded by the defence. There was nothing the witness volunteered that was not tendered in court. This application is just designed to delay the opening of their defence,” he said.

    Besides, he said the issue of incomplete statement was raised in the no-case submission, which had been decided. He said the prosecution having closed its cases, the application, filed since January, was therefore incompetent.

    “The application is an abuse of court process and is incompetent. In view of the service of the application on me today (yesterday), I urge the court to strike it out,” Oyedepo prayed.

    But, Adio insisted that the additional statements were needed to enable Belgore defend himself.

    “The issue we have raised goes to the heart of our case. It is part of what the Constitution requires that they provide for the defence. The defendant knows how many statements he made. We need those statements to be complete and on record,” the SAN argued.

    Justice Aikawa then directed Oyedepo to file a formal objection to the application to produce the additional statements.

    He adjourned for hearing of the application.

    In the nine-count amended charge, EFCC accused Alison-Madueke, Belgore and Suleiman of making cash payment of N10million to a Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in Kwara State Dr Emmanuel Onucheyo.

    The commission said they also paid N10million to a Commissioner of Police in the state Garba Saliu.

    According to EFCC, they allegedly made the payments on March 27, 2015 without going through a financial institution.

    The sums, the commission said, exceeded the amount authorised by law and violated Section 1(a) and Section 16 (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act of 2012 and punishable under Section 16 (2) (b).

    The defendants were also accused in the amended charge of making cash payment of N61,656,000 to Isa Biu on the same day, exceeding what is authorised by law.

    EFCC said they also paid N87,962,000 to Sola Adeoti and Hajiya Dankaka on the same day “without going through a financial institution.”

    EFCC said they “directly took possession of the sum N450million,” adding that they “reasonably ought to have known [that the money] forms part of the proceeds of unlawful act.”

    It also accused them of “indirectly” using the sum of N450million on March 27, 2015 and making cash payment of N450million, which exceeded the amount authorised by law.

    According to the commission, Mrs Alison-Madueke, Belgore and Sulieman, on the same day, made cash payment of N50million to one Sheriff Shagaya, an amount exceeding what is authorised by law.

    They pleaded not guilty.

    Justice Rilwan Aikawa adjourned until April 30 for hearing.

  • Akinjide ’s alleged N650m fraud: Judge orders trial-within-trial

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday ordered a trial-within-trial in the ongoing prosecution of a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory ( FCT ), Jumoke Akinjide, and others charged with N650 million fraud.

    Justice Muslim Hassan gave the order for the trial following objections raised by the defence counsel, who had argued that statements purportedly made by the accused were obtained under duress, threat and inducement.

    Akinjide is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) along with a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, who is said to be “at large”.

    Also charged with them are a former Senator, Ayo Adeseun, and a Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP ) chieftain, Olarenwaju Otiti.

    They allegedly conspired to directly take possession of N650 million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act which did not go through a financial institution.

    During the trial on Monday, the EFCC Prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, had resumed examination of the second prosecution witness, Mr Usman Zakari, an investigating officer with the EFCC.

    In continuation of his evidence, the witness told the court that his investigations revealed that there were no banking instruments to justify the claims by the accused that the money came from the Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP ).

    Oyedepo asked: “You said that the first and second accused persons and one Mr Yinka Taiwo signed a receipt of payment for N650 million, what steps did you take as regards the signatories?

    In response, the witness told the court that the second accused was arrested, and then he confirmed that the details in the receipt were his and that he signed it for the payment of N650 million.

    The witness further said that the first accused, in the presence of her counsel, made statements in relation to the charge and also confirmed that she had signed for the payment of the N650 million.

    On how the confirmation was done, the witness said: “The confirmation by the first and second accused persons was made while their statements were taken”.

    He told the court that on Dec. 15, 2016, the first accused had provide a document stating how the N650 million was disbursed without the use of a financial institution.

    The witness said the first accused volunteered statements in his presence.

    Oyedepo then applied to the court to tender the said statement, having laid proper foundation for case.

    At this point, defence counsel raised objection and submitted that the statements were made under duress and inducement and requested for a trial-within-trial to determine how the statements were extracted.

    Counsel to the second accused, Mr Micheal Lana, told the court that the statement of the second accused was also made under duress and inducement.

    He urged the court to allow the prosecution to tender the statement of the second accused so that the trial-within-trial would be taken together.

    Mr Akinola Oladeji, counsel to the third accused, also agreed with the submission of Lana, adding that the third accused was even threatened with incarceration.

    In response, Oyedepo submitted that the counsel to the accused persons could not request for a trial-within-trial as the accused persons had denied every admission of guilt in their statements.

    He added that the statements were not confessional statements as the provision of the Evidence Act in relation to trial-within-trial was only for confessional statements.

    Justice Hassan, in a short ruling, ordered a trial-within-trial.

    He held that the court could not determine if the statements were confessional statements or not since they were not before it.

    Earlier, counsel to the first accused, Mr Bolaji Ayorinde ( SAN ), had raised an objection to the oral evidence of the second prosecution witness on the grounds that it was a hearsay evidence.

    The court, however, overruled the objection and held that the evidence was by no means a hearsay.

    “I do not want to be misunderstood; all that I am saying is that the evidence of PW2 is admissible only as to what he carried out in the course of his investigation.

    “The velocity or weight to be attached to that evidence can only be determined at the conclusion of the trial.”

    The case has been adjourned until April 23 and April 24 for continuation of trial.

    NAN

  • Alleged bribery: ‘Judge’s bank account’ is mine, says Tarfa’s witness

     

    A Lagos High Court in Igbosere on Wednesday heard that an account into which Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr Rickey Tarfa deposited N225,000, belongs to a lawyer and not Justice Mohammed Nasir Yinusa.

    Abuja-based lawyer, Mr Mohammed Auwal Yinusa, told Justice Adedayo Akintoye that he was shocked to read in the newspapers that his Access Bank account number was quoted as belonging to the judge.

    Yinusa, Tarfa’s former employee between 2011 and 2014, testified as the second defence witness in the SAN’s trial for alleged gratification.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned Tarfa on March 10, 2016 on a 27-count charge which was subsequently amended to 26 counts.

    He was accused of alleged willful obstruction of EFCC officials, refusal to declare assets and giving false information to a public officer, by lying about his age.

    According to the EFCC, the Silk paid N225,000 in 2014 into an Access Bank account it said belonged to Federal High Court judge, Justice Yinusa.

    The agency also alleged, among others, that Tarfa offered N5.3 million as gratification to Justice hyeladzira Nganjiwa in order to compromise the judge.

    It claimed that Tarfa transferred the money in several tranches between June 27, 2012 and December 23, 2014.

    Tarfa pleaded not guilty.

    On March 13, Justice Akintoye summoned Tarfa’s witnesses so he could open his defence.

    This followed the dismissal of his no-case submission last February 9.

    At the commencement of proceedings yesterday, Tarfa’s counsel, Mr Abiodun Owonikoko SAN, led Yinusa in Examination-in-Chief.

    Yinusa said he left Tarfa’s employ in 2014 for further studies abroad, following which the SAN gifted him N225,000 to support his education.

    He explained that he is the owner of the Access Bank account into which the N225,000 which the EFCC claimed that Tarfa bribed a judge with, was paid, and not Justice Yinusa.

    Yinusa said: “I found that my Access Bank account was quoted in that publication. I was in a state of shock.”

    He added that he rushed to his bank and obtained a certified true copy of his statement of account, which showed that it was indeed his account that was quoted by the EFCC.

    Yinusa said: “I was shocked, my Lord, because I am not a judge, I never received gratification from the defendant. My name is Mohammed Auwal Yinusa. The judge’s name is Mohammed Nasir Yinusa. I am not related to him. He is from Yobe State; I am Igalla from Kogi State. Untill recently when I saw him on television, I had never set my eyes on him.”

    Under cross examination by prosecution counsel Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, Yinusa said other payments the Silk allegedly made to any other judge, were were not made through his bank account.

    Justice Akintoye adjourned till today for re-examination of the witness.

    Earlier, Yinusa’s relationship officer from Access Bank, Abisola Olutade, testified as the first defence witness.

    Her testimony was preceded by a National Judicial Council staff, Olufolake Saleh Ahmed, who tendered a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers and a revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Nigeria.

     

     

  • Money laundery: Bank official gives evidence against Usman, Fani-Kayode

    Money laundery: Bank official gives evidence against Usman, Fani-Kayode

    More revelations were made on Thursday at a Federal High Court in Lagos in the ongoing trial of a former Minister of State for Finance, Nenandi Usman, who is facing a corruption charge.

    A bank official and witness told the court how N250 million was transferred into an  ex-minister’s account from a company.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC )  is prosecuting Usman  alongside Femi Fani-Kayode, a former Minister of Aviation and the Chairman of the 2015 Goodluck Jonathan Presidential Campaign Organisation.

    Others are a former National Chairman of the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), Yusuf Danjuma and a company — Jointrust Dimentions Nigeria Ltd.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had slammed a 17-count charge bordering on laundering of N4.6 billion.

    They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges and were were granted bails.

    At the resumed hearing of the case on Thursday,  Counsel to the third and fourth accused, Mr Clement Onwuenwuno, began cross-examination of the second prosecution witness, Mr Teslim Ajuwon, who was still under oath.

    Onwuenwunor ask the witness to confirm his position in the bank and he confirmed that he was a compliance officer.

    Onwuenwunor: Are you the relationship officer or the account officer?

    Witness: Neither.

    Onwuenwunor asked the witness if he made any statement at EFCC and he responded in the negative.

    Onwuenwunor: Before your bank’s letter to the EFCC in February 2016, did your bank raise any query on the account of the fourth accused?

    Witness: I am not sure.

    Onwuenwunor: Who is a signatory to the fourth accused bank account (exhibit eight)?

    Witness: Mr Yusuf Danjuma, the third accused.

    Onwuenwunor: In your bank, is it wrong for the third accused to instruct transfer of money to any person?

    Witness: It is his mandate.

    No re-examination was taken, and the PW2 was discharged.

    The EFCC prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, called the third witness, Mrs Shedlis Gana, who swore on the Holy Bible before proceeding to give her testimony.

    Gana told the court that she was the branch manager of the Ghana Street branch of Zenith Bank, where the second and fourth accuseds’ accounts are domiciled.

    When asked if she knew all the accused, she responded in the affirmative for the accused persons, except the third accused.

    Oyedepo: How do you know the second accused?

    Witness: He is a former minister and an account officer in my branch, Gloria Chibuikem, opened a personal account for the second accused.

    The witness, being directed by the EFCC prosecutor, proceeded to identify instruction letters  sent by the accused to the bank for funds transfer to some other accounts.

    Gana further matched the debit instruction letters received from the second accused with entries made in Exhibit 7 (second accused’s statement of account).

    The witness identified a N250 million debit instruction from Jointrust Dimentions Nigeria Ltd. to credit another account.

    Oyedepo: Whose account was credited with that N250 million from Jointrust Dimentions Nigeria Ltd. account?

    Witness: Second accused.

    In his cross-examination, Counsel to the first accused, Mr Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) asked the witness: Have you ever had cause to complain, that any document submitted to EFCC by your bank, was doctored?

    The witness replied: An issue arose like that.

    Orbih: That doctored document is it part of the documents you analyzed before this court today?

    Witness: Yes it is.

    Orbih: Who doctored those documents?

    Witness: People photocopying the documents, Mr Peter Alemo and Mr Alozie Alaka.

    Orbih: Were they the same staff, that photocopied all the documents sent to the EFCC?

    Witness: Yes, they were.

    Orbih: Who discovered the doctored documents?

    Witness: EFCC did.

    Orbih: Do you know if any other document was doctored?

    Witness: No, I don’t know.

    Orbih: Did you personally carry out any of the transactions?

    Witness: No, I didn’t.

    Orbih, further asked if the witness could confirm that the cheques, previously tendered into evidence, were not doctored; she replied that she could not confirm.

    Orbih: Can you authoritatively say it was the second accused that cashed the cheques?

    Witness: I cannot authoritatively say that the account officer told me.

    Orbih took the witness through the statement of account of one MFA Research Project, Abuja, in Zenith Bank to identify the outflow of N800 million to the fourth accused.

    The witness confirmed that it was also reflected on the forth accused’s statement of account (Exhibit 8).

    Justice Aikawa has adjourned until March 2 for continuation of trial.

    NAN

  • Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: Ozekhome, EFCC’s lawyer clash over representation

    Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: Ozekhome, EFCC’s lawyer clash over representation

    Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Mike Ozekhome and counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Rotimi Oyedepo clashed at the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday.

    It was over the representation of four companies that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million allegedly belonging to former First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan.

    Ozekhome is claiming to have been validly appointed to represent the firms. Another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, also claimed that he was briefed by the companies to represent them.

    The companies are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd.

    The EFCC arraigned them with a former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to President Goodluck Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa; a lawyer, Amajuoyi Briggs; and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

    Unlike the companies, Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.

    Aghanenu filed a motion for change of counsel, praying the court to hold that he was validly appointed by the companies’ directors to represent them, not Ozekhome.

    The motion was argued yesterday before Justice Babs Kuewumi.

    Ozekhome urged the court to dismiss the application for change of counsel.

    Oyedepo said he was not opposed to the motion.

    There was a heated exchanged between Ozekhome and Oyedepo when the SAN accused EFCC of trying to determine which lawyer would represent the companies.

    Ozekhome said the EFCC, being the prosecution, should not be interested in who represented the companies.

    He said: “Because we want to set aside the guilty plea of the companies, they arranged with the EFCC to change counsel. We’ll not allow that to happen. They’ll continue to contend with my face.

    “It already shows that you (EFCC) have an interest in who represents the defendant you’re prosecuting.”

    But, Oyedepo described Ozekhome’s comments as prejudicial, saying they were unfair to him and EFCC.

    “The allegation made by the learned SAN is totally unmeritorious. It is not in the interest of justice. It’s prejudicial to us. It’s unfortunate.

    “This is not the only case we are both involved in. So, why would I not want to see his face?  My prayer is that he should be busy, that people should contact and give him briefs,” he said.

    Oyedepo said it was wrong for Ozekhome to “scandalise” him. But the SAN insisted that the EFCC had a preference for the lawyer who would represent the firms.

    Ozekhome: “I did not scandalise him. I only said that EFCC wanting to determine who represents the defendants in a matter they are prosecuting shows they have interest in the matter.

    “Otherwise, why would directors of a company plead guilty on behalf of a company after they had earlier said they didn’t know anything about the company?

    “I wasn’t casting any aspersions on him. I was making a statement of fact. And I maintain it till death, till eternity,” Ozekhome said.

    Oyedepo sought the court’s leave to explain why he was not opposed to application for change of counsel. But other defence counsel objected on the basis that EFCC was only a respondent, not an applicant.

    Justice Kuewumi tried to calm them down, saying Ozekhome’s comments was not part of his records.

    Ozekhome also accused the EFCC of trying to intimidate judges, saying: “Stop intimidating the judiciary!”

    The judge responded: “This court cannot be intimidated.”

    Oyedepo said it was “unfair” for Ozekhome to make such as allegation.

    In an affidavit in support of Ozekhome’s motion, a lawyer in his firm, Chimaobi Onuigbo, said the companies’ representatives who pleaded guilty to money laundering (Friday Davis, Agbo Baro, Dioghowori Fredrick and Taiwo Ebenezer) had earlier denied having anything to do with the companies or being directors.

    He said the representatives also refused to accept service of processes in a suit by Mrs. Jonathan against EFCC and others pending before Justice Mohammed Idris of the same court.

    The deponent noted that Justice Idris had directed parties to serve Briggs with the process since he was on record as the Companies’ Secretary.

    Ozekhome said when Briggs was served with the processes, he instructed him to defend the companies.

    “I was briefed not just on this matter but on the other matters involving the companies, even on appeal. They want an unknown entity to displace me. It is infra dignitatem (beneath dignity), abominable,” he said.

    But, Oyedepo said the court had earlier recognised the companies’ individual representatives, who he said had the right to appoint their counsel.

    Justice Kuewumi adjourned till March 13 for ruling on which lawyer to represent the companies.

     

  • Patience Jonathan: Ozekhome, EFCC’s lawyer clash over representation

    Patience Jonathan: Ozekhome, EFCC’s lawyer clash over representation

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome and counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Rotimi Oyedepo, clashed at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday.

    The disagreement was over the representation of four companies that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million allegedly belonging to former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan.

    While Ozekhome is claiming to have been validly appointed to represent the firms, another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, also claimed that he was briefed by the companies to represent them.

    The companies are – Pluto Property and Investment Company Limited, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Limited, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Limited and Avalon Global Property Development Limited.

    The EFCC arraigned them with a former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to President Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa, a lawyer Amajuoyi Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

    Unlike the companies, Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.

    Aghanenu filed a motion for change of counsel, praying the court to hold that he was validly appointed by the companies’ directors to represent them, not Ozekhome.

    The motion was argued before Justice Babs Kuewumi.

    While Ozekhome urged the court to dismiss the application for change of counsel, Oyedepo said he was not opposed to the motion.

    There was a heated exchanged between Ozekhome and Oyedepo when the SAN accused EFCC of trying to determine which lawyer would represent the companies.

    Ozekhome said EFCC being the prosecution should not be interested in who represented the companies.

    He said: “Because we want to set aside the guilty plea of the companies, they arranged with the EFCC to change counsel. We’ll not allow that to happen. They’ll continue to contend with my face.

    “It already show your interest, that you (EFCC) have an interest in who represents the defendants you’re prosecuting.”

    But, Oyedepo described Ozekhome’s comments as prejudicial, saying they were unfair to him and EFCC.

    “The allegation made by the learned SAN is totally unmeritorious. It is not in the interest of justice. It’s prejudicial to us. It’s unfortunate.

    “This not the only case we are both involved in, so why would I not want to see his face?  My prayer is that he should be busy, that people should contact and give him briefs,” he said.

    Oyedepo said it was wrong for Ozekhome to “scandalise” him, but the SAN insisted that the EFCC had a preference for the lawyer who would represent the firms.”

     

  • Fani-Kayode to court: I have a heart ailment

    Fani-Kayode to court: I have a heart ailment

     

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday heard that former former Minister of Aviation Chief Femi Fani-Kayode has a heart-related ailment.

    His lawyer Mr Norrison Quakers (SAN) told Justice Rilwan Aikawa that the former minister complained about “heart-related pain” and could not make it to court for his trial.

    His absence stalled his trial for alleged money laundering.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) re-arraigned Fani-Kayode and former finance minister (state) Senator Nenadi Usman for alleged N4.6billion laundering and fraud.

    They were arraigned along with a former National Chairman of the Association of Local Governments in Nigeria ( ALGON ) Yusuf Danjuma, and a company, Jointrust Dimensions Ltd.

    When the case was called, only Usman and Danjuma stepped into the dock.

    Before lawyers announced their appearances, Justice Rilwan asked why Fani-Kayode was not present.

    Quakers spoke up, saying: “I was going to inform My Lord that the second defendant is indisposed. I got a call from his wife who said he was complaining of heart-related pain.”

    Quakers said he expected to get a medical report on his client’s health condition before the close of work.

    According to him, the issue of health could not be taken lightly considering several cases of sudden deaths, including that of a lawyer who collapsed and died in a courtroom while addressing a judge.

    After formerly appearance, Quakers asked that the dates reserved for trial (yesterday and today) be vacated. 

    He said: “The second defendant is unavoidably absent as a result of health challenge, which information was related to me by the wife. I’ve requested for a medical report.

    “If I get the report, I’ll furnish the court with it. I apply that tomorrow’s (today’s) date be vacated so that we can have another date for continuation of trial.”

    EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo did not oppose the application.

    The defendants were accused of indirectly retaining N1.billion, N300million, N400million and N800million, all proceeds of corruption, according to EFCC.

    The prosecution said they allegedly committed the offence between January 8 and March 25, 2015 ahead of the general election.

    Fani-Kayode was also accused of doing cash transaction of N24million with Olubode Oke without going through a financial institution.

    The offence, EFCC said, violates sections 1(a) and 16(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable under Section 16(2)(b).

    The defendants pleaded not guilty.

    Justice Aikawa adjourned till February 28, March 1 and 2 for continuation of trial.

  • Ex-INEC staff explains N30m ‘Diezani cash’

    Ex-INEC staff explains N30m ‘Diezani cash’

    A former Administrative Secretary at the Kwara State office of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Mr Christian Nwosu on Thursday denied being bribed by former Petroleum Minister Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke to rig the 2015 general election results.

    He said the N30 million he was alleged to have collected from her was spent on logistics.

    Nwosu said his office knew about the money and how it was spent.

    He spoke while testifying in a trial-within-trial before Justice Ibrahim Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos.
    Under cross-examination by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, Nwosu claimed he did not personally benefit from the money.

    He said it was shared to INEC ad-hoc staff for logistics.

    He said: “I did not personally benefit from the N30 million. The ad-hoc staff benefitted because the election went smoothly with the assistance of the logistics support. My commission was aware of the money and the evidence was that the election went smoothly.”

    On how he got the cash, he said: “The money was not given to me by way of cheque. We were asked to go to the bank to collect it. No cheque was given to me at the bank. I just signed a document at the bank which confirmed the receipt of the money.

    “I did not instruct the bank to transfer the money to any account because it was not for me but for the coordinator (Mr Isa Adedoyin) who is to ensure that the money gets to the ad-hoc staff.”

    Nwosu said N17 million was paid into his Diamond Bank Plc account on April 7, 2015, while N13 million was also paid into his Union Bank account on April 13, 2015.

    Nwosu had earlier claimed that EFCC allegedly forced him to surrender his property worth N30million.

    He said he was also induced to part with N5million in a bid to regain his freedom.

    According to him, “the statements he made at EFCC were dictated to him while the one he made voluntarily was described as “rubbish”.

    Nwosu and Tijani Inda Bashir were accused of receiving N30million bribe from Mrs Alison-Madueke.

    They were arraigned along with Yisa Adedoyin, who pleaded guilty to receiving the cash payment of N70,050,000.00 from Mrs Alison-Madueke.

    Mrs Alison-Madueke is also named in the charge, but is said to be “at large”.

    Justice Idris adjourned to November 15.

  • Belgore’s N500m fraud charge: Join me as defendant, Diezani tells court

    A former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Allison-Madueke on Monday asked a Federal High Court in Lagos to issue an order, listing her as a party to a N500 million fraud charge involving a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dele Belgore.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) had charged Belgore together with a former Minister of National Planning, Prof. Abubakar Suleiman, on a five-count charge bordering on N500 million fraud.

    The EFCC had named the former petroleum minister as an accomplice in the criminal trial.

    She was however, described as being “at large”.

    The EFCC prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo had opened the case for the prosecution and had already called two witnesses in the ongoing trial.

    Meanwhile, at the last adjournment on Oct 6, Allison-Madueke, through her lawyer, urged the court to compel the Attorney-General of the Federation to extradite her to Nigeria from the United Kingdom to defend herself.

    Justice Mohammed Aikawa had adjourned the case to hear the motion to join Allison-Madueke.

    At the resumed trial on Monday, Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), counsel representing Allison-Madueke (the applicant), urged the court to grant his application for “joinder of the applicant” in the sole interest of justice.

    “My lord, we have a motion dated Sept. 29 and an affidavit of 16 paragraphs together with a written address which we rely on.

    “We have received the counter-affidavit of counsel, but there remains yet one consideration which should touch conscience of parties.

    “In four counts of the charge, the applicant’s name was mentioned clearly and there is no alteration to the fact that she has been charged; it simply suggests that it is a consummated complaint.”

    According to Ikpeazu, by the definition Section of 494 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, a defendant is any person against whom a complaint or charge is made, while a charge refers to an allegation that any named person has committed an offence.

    He argued that from count one to count four, the name of the applicant was mentioned as an accomplice, adding that it would be in the interest of justice to join her in the charge.

    Persuasively citing the authority of Frn vs Jide Omokore, FHC/Abj/CR/121/2016, which he argues bears similarity with the instant case, he noted that the judge had struck out the charges on similar grounds.

    “We will have no objections if the applicant’s name is extracted from the charge, then, trial can proceed. Otherwise, she should be included in the charge.

    “I know that she will be happy to come and face the trial,” he told the court.

    Objecting to the motion for joinder, counsel to the first accused, Mr E. O. Shofunde (SAN), informed the court of his counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the application.

    Firstly, Shofunde, argued that the applicant was not a necessary party to the suit since in the end, the court will only decide the guilt or innocence of the first and second accused who were charged.

    Again, he contended that by the combined provisions of Sections 216(2), 221, 273, 274, and 494(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, only the prosecution could exercise the power to amend a process during trial.

    He argued that it will be “incongruous” for any other party to seek an amendment of a criminal charge, adding that the court will not make an order in vain.

    Besides, the counsel argued that it will amount to a waste of precious judicial time if that amendment was allowed since some progress had been made in the case.

    In his response, Oyedepo, agreed with the first defence counsel and vehemently opposed the application for joinder, citing the Ewenla Vs State case.

    He noted that where trial had commenced, the state could only amend a charge for purposes of adding offences and not defendants.

    Oyedepo said:“Iif an amendment is allowed at this stage, it will occasion a miscarriage of justice.”

    He added that several attempts were initially made to interrogate the applicant, but that she fled to London after she got wind of the move by the EFCC, and has since then, carefully avoided any meeting with the commission.

    According to Oyedepo, it is misconceived and too late in the day for the applicant to now seek to be joined in the charge when she is already under investigation in London.

    He submitted that whenever the applicant returns to Nigeria, she can still be tried as time does not run against the prosecution in criminal trial.

    After listening to the counsel, Justice Aikawa fixed Nov. 1 for ruling.

    In the amended charge, Diezani was alleged to have conspired with Belgore and Sulaiman on or about March 27, 2015 to directly take possession of the sum of N450 million which they reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of unlawful act.

    They were also alleged to have taken the said funds in cash which exceeded the amount authorized by law without going through the financial institutions.

    Belgore and Sulaiman were also alleged to have paid the sum of N50 million to a man, Sheriff Shagaya, without going through any financial institution.

    The offences contravened the provisions of Sections 15(2)(d), 1(a), 16(d) and 18 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Amended Act, 2012.

    NAN