Court Strikes out Suit against Saraki’s Aides over Alleged N3.5bn Paris Loan Scam

Three aides to former Senate President Dr. Bukola Saraki have been granted relief after a Federal High Court in Lagos ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the 11-count charge filed against them in connection with the alleged N3.5 billion Paris loan scandal.

Justice Akintayo Aluko struck out the accusation brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), ruling that the EFCC’s second amended charge was brought in violation of Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act.

Saraki’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Gbenga Makanjuola; a cashier in the Senate president’s office, Kolawole Shittu; a former Managing Director of Societe Generale Bank, Robert Chidozie (now at large); and a company, Melrose General Services Limited, and its Operations Manager, Obiora Amobi are among the former Senate President’s aides.

Read Also:  Security agents killed 13,241 Nigerians extrajudicially in ten years — CDD

The EFCC has them arraigned in court in September 2019 for the alleged offenses.

The defendants were originally arraigned in front of Justice Babs Kuewunmi, who has been transferred to a different division of the court.

The defendants’ case file was transferred to Justice Akintayo Aluko after Justice Kuewunmi was transferred.

Midway through their trial, however, the prosecution agency (EFCC) requested to the court to alter the accusation against them, adding two more counts to the original eleven.

However, the defendants, through their lawyers, contested the court’s jurisdiction to hear the allegations brought against them, as well as the second modified 13-count charge.

The defendants stated in their motion that the prosecution failed to establish categorically where the offenses were committed in the accusation.

Read Also:  Probe PDP’s ‘Missing’ N11.8bn, Ex-Chair Tells EFCC

The defendants alleged that the second modified charge was a ruse by the prosecution to fix the flaws in the first amended charge.

As a result, they asked the court to dismiss the case and award the EFCC N20 million in damages.

The EFCC, on the other hand, through its counsel, objected to the defendants’ application and urged the court to dismiss it.

After considering the parties’ submissions and the multiplicity of legal authorities provided, Justice Aluko granted Saraki’s aides’ request and dismissed the charges against them due to a lack of jurisdiction.

However, Justice Aluko turned down the defendants’ motion for a cost award of N20 million against the EFCC.

Read Also:  EFCC: Fani-Kayode insists no regrets after joining APC

“The prosecution called my attention to the second amended charge which they propose to bring in; I see this call as another means of seeking an amendment of the first amended charge, the validity and competence of which is on trial in light of the preliminary objection of the defendants over which the prosecution has joined issue and which is under consideration,” Justice Aluko wrote in striking down the charge.

“I see the prosecution’s request that I take judicial notice of the proposed second amended charge as an invitation for the court to overrule itself in its October 15, 2021 ruling, in which this court held that an incompetent originating process could not be later amended to make it competent, because you can’t put something on nothing and expect it to stand.”

“I am of the opinion that the prosecution’s request for judicial notice of the second amended charge, notwithstanding the fact that both parties have raised issues on the legitimacy and competency of the pending first amended charge, will not provide relief to the prosecution.” This is because the second amended charge was filed in violation of Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act’s required provision. The Apex Court held as follows in its concurring opinion in Belgore vs FRN and Anor (above) at page 533 paras D-€: ‘Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act provides for where offences are to be tried… These provisions are not able to be waived.’

“Even if I were to follow the prosecution’s request to take judicial notice of the second revised charge, I don’t see how that would improve or repair the prosecution’s case.” A review of the 13 counts in the accusation reveals that the alleged crimes in the counts were allegedly committed in Lagos.

Read Also:  China pledged a billion doses of Covid vaccine for Nigeria, Other African Countries

“I venture to guess that the story will loudly remain the same as long as the prosecution continues to dwell or rely on the comments in the proof of evidence connected to the previous amended charge.” The clear inconsistency between the 13 counts in the proposed second amended charge as to where the offenses were allegedly committed and the assertions in the proof of evidence will continue to be exposed. It will mean that the 13 counts in the proposed amended charge name Lagos as the place or region where the crimes were committed, while the proof of evidence statements name Abuja. This indicates that the charge still contains a breach of the fundamental and mandatory provision in Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act relating this court’s geographical jurisdiction.”

The defendants were presented before the court on October 7, 2018, on charges of conspiracy and payment of funds without going through financial institutions.

The EFCC, through its counsel, Mr. Ekele Iheanacho, informed the court at their arraignment that the three defendants colluded among themselves sometime in December 2016 to conceal the origin of the sum of N3.5 billion deposited into Melrose General Services Limited bank account.

Iheanacho further informed the court that the third defendant, Obiora Amobi, the operation manager of Melrose General Services, made a cash transfer of N300 million to Robert Mbonu (now at large) from the N3.5 billion without going through a financial institution between December 15 and 17, 2016.

Read Also:  Centre lauds NYSC on fight against fake certificates

Saraki’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Makanjuola, and the Senate President’s Cashier, Shittu, were also accused of making a cash payment of $1.5 million in three tranches between themselves in December 2016 without going through a financial institution.

According to the EFCC, the alleged offenses are in violation of Sections 18(2)(d), 15(2)(b) 1(a), and 16(2)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011, and are punishable under Sections 15(3) and 16 (2)(b) of the same act.