The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, yesterday surprised Nigerians with the unconditional dropping of the 47 count-charge leveled against former Minister of Works, Dr. Hassan Lawal, and nine others, before a Federal High Court in Abuja for defrauding the government of N6bn.
This came in disregard to the criticism facing the federal government for being too weak in the fight against corruption in the country. Few months ago, the federal government also dropped charges of theft totaling N446bn against Mohammed Abacha, son of former dictator, Sani Abacha.
The EFCC had, for three times before it finally dropped the case, amended the charges against Lawal. The case was supposed to start afresh before a new judge – Justice Ahmed Mohammed because the former trial judge, Justice Adamu Bello retired from the bench in December 2013.
When the case was called up yesterday, the EFCC prosecuting counsel, Wahab Shittu, released the shocker, saying, he had a “firm instruction” from the Commission to drop the charges.
The trial judge obliged, thereby discharging Hassan Lawan, alongside Dr. Adeola Ademola, Dave Enejoh, Okala Yakubu and Thahal Paul.
The remaining five out of the accused are companies. They include Digital Toll Company Ltd, Swede Control Intertek Ltd, Proman Vital Ventures Ltd, Wise Health Services Ltd and Abbey Building Society.
Lawal was last year cleared by the court of an eight-count charge bordering on conspiracy and corruption to the tune of N43 million which was slammed on him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC. That case presided over by the now retired Justice Adamu Bello, was made remarkable by the learned judge’s ruling where he chided the EFCC for a shoddy investigation.
Justice Bello ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of money laundering before the court asserting that the EFCC did not present any evidence to show that the transferred funds were derived from illegal and corrupt proceeds.
“Prosecution failed to prove that the money in question was derived from illegal source, even when the accused gave the prosecution a lead that he got the money from other transactions, such as the sales of his assets, the prosecution did not bother to ask whether the transaction is real or not,” he said.
Conversely, in Yesterday’s case, the judge did not even hear the case, as it was the EFCC itself which asked him to discharge the former Minister.
Lawal and his co-accused were being prosecuted for fraudulently obtaining a total sum of N6.41bn from the Federal Government, Kogi and Nasarawa State governments between 2006 and 2009 under a public-private partnership concession scheme for the construction of a bridge across River Benue.
The total cost of the project which was to link Guto and Bangana in Nasarawa and Kogi states respectively was N24.36bn and was expected to be delivered in two years, from May 2007 to May 2009. No fewer than 130 exhibits were tendered while it was being heard by the retired Justice Adamu.
According to the EFCC lawyer, Shittu, who did not even give a reason justifying the Commission’s decision to withdraw the charges, he was merely acting on an instruction; “I have firm instruction that the case against the accused persons, all of them, be discontinued,
“To assure you that I did not make the application out of my own volition I asked them to put it in writing and they did. So, as an obedient servant, I have no other choice than to carry out the instruction. I hereby apply that the charges be discontinued and the accused persons be discharged.”
One of the lawyers of the accused requested the judge to not only discharge the accused but to acquit them. However, Shittu urged the court to refuse to make an acquittal order on the grounds that the accused had not been arraigned before the new judge, and that the application for discontinuance was “without prejudice to the merit or otherwise of the matter.”
Consequently in a short ruling, Justice Mohammed upheld Shittu’s contention, noting that he lacked the power to make an order for acquittal when the accused persons had not been arraigned before him.
No comments:
Post a Comment