Alleged Fraud: FCT Court Discharges, Acquits Adoke in OPL 245 Trial

Justice Abubakar Kutigi of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court yesterday dismissed the charges of fraud, bribery and conspiracy filed against a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The court reprimanded the EFCC for filing “frivolous” charges against the AGF.

At the court session yesterday, Justice Kutigi upheld the no-case submission filed by Adoke and s the charges of fraud, bribery and conspiracy against the former minister on the grounds that the EFCC failed to adduce credible evidence to prove the allegations contained in the charge.

Although the judge commended the prosecution for conceding that it did not have sufficient evidence to oppose the no-case application by Adoke, he criticised the anti-graft agency for wasting four years prosecuting the case.

The judge added that the defendants ought not to have been charged in the first instance.

He said the allegation of illegal tax waivers granted to Shell and Eni was not corroborated by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) or any authority.

Justice Kutigi said the EFCC failed to prove its charges of fraud, bribery and money laundering and ruled that the defendant has no case to answer, adding that the EFCC did not provide the necessary evidence to prove that the alleged N300 million bribe said to have been given to Adoke by Aliyu Abubakar.

The judge further noted that a charge must not be filed just for the purpose of filing, adding that a frivolous charge does damage to the judicial system.

“It is argued that people can be arrested circumstantially,” the judge said.

“But every trial, more so, a criminal trial is a different ball game which must be undertaken with utmost care and attention to details, particularly, the quality of the evidence and availability of witnesses.

“It cannot be right or fair, that in this case, for example, nearly about 30 counts in the case involving forgery, the documents subject to these counts were not presented in evidence and material evidence led to situate the elements of forgery.

“If as stated by the lead investigator, PW10, that they demanded for about 37 documents from the CAC but only a few were made available, this then begs the question, why a charge will be filed involving those documents the prosecution does not have access to?

“I must therefore make the point that the whole trial process whatever its inherent imperfection is entirely evidence driven, evidence which requires quality and probative value.

“This is so whether it is at this stage of situating a prima facie, as in the present situation, or at the point of determining guilt, or otherwise of the defendants.

“Without evidence in either of the two situations, it is self evident that such a case stands compromised ab initio.

“On the whole, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential elements of the offences for which the defendants were charged and accordingly, the no case submission has considerable merit and must be sustained.