EFCC Appeals Ruling Discharging Lagos Speaker, Ikuforiji.
In a Notice of Appeal filed before the Lagos Division of the Court of
Appeal, the EFCC wants the appellate court to set aside the decision of
the trial judge, Justice Ibrahim Buba dated September 26, 2014.
The EFCC also want the upper court to order a trial ‘de novo’ (fresh
trial) before another judge of the Federal High Court, Lagos other than
Justice Buba.
Through its counsel, Godwin Obla, the commission asked the Appeal
Court to hold that Justice Buba erred in law, when he held and concluded
that counts 2-48 are incompetent, because they were filed pursuant to
Section 1(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 which has
been repealed by the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.
No date has however, been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
It would be recalled that Justice Buba had discharged Hon Ikuforiji
and his Personal Assistant, Oyebode Atoyebi over allegations of
laundering the money which belonged to the Lagos State House of
Assembly.
Justice Buba, in a ruling on a “no case submission” filed by the
Speaker and Atoyebi, held that the EFCC failed to prove any of the
ingredients of the crime of money laundering.
The court also declared that the EFCC failed to establish a
prima-facie case against the accused persons and that the suit was an
abuse of court process.
Other Grounds Of Appeal
The commission also wants the upper court to hold that the Federal
High Court, “Erred in law and came to a perverse decision when it held
thus:
“On other constitutional issues, the prosecution has also not
answered the submission referred to in this ruling. Consequently, the
first and second accused be and are hereby discharged.
“The lower court erred in law, when it held that the provision of
Section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 and 2011 only
applies to natural persons and corporate bodies other than government;
like the office of the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly.
“The lower court erred in law, when it held that one of the
ingredient of offence contained in Section 1 of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) Act, 2004 and 2011 is that the appellant must prove that
the money involved in the cash payment was derived from money laundering
or drug or human trafficking, terrorism financing, bribery and
corruption or other illicit or illegal dealings of crimes.
“The lower court erred in law when it held that the appellant by
using the words, ‘accepting various cash payments amounting to without
going through a financial institution’ in the counts at the lower court
had placed an extra burden of proof on the appellant.
“The lower court erred in law when it held and concluded that the
case of the prosecution witnesses supported the innocence of the
respondent.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when he upheld the no case
submission of the respondent and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of
justice
0 comments:
Post a Comment