EFCC's admission that it has no evidence to convict Mr Adoke and other defendants will likely shock those following the Malabu OPL 245 saga.
The
It marks a defining juncture in a trial that set out to seek justice for
The concession came after the anti-graft agency called 10 witnesses to prove its case of fraud, bribery and corruption against the defendants in a high-profile trial that has two multinational oil companies as defendants.
The case had been going on for over three years at the
The anti-graft agency dropped the bombshell of lacking sufficient evidence against key defendants in the case in a fresh court filing it submitted to the trial court on
The defendants, with the no-case submission filing, requested the court to terminate the trial midway due to the insufficient evidence, they claimed the prosecution adduced to prove its case.
The case has been one of
Malabu, a firm incorporated in
The then administration of President
Long way to trial
For years, the Nigerian government struggled to bring back from exile Mohammed Adoke, who was the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) when the deal on the OPL 245 was struck in 2011, to account for his roles in the matter. Mr Adoke returned to
In
Among the principal defendants charged in the case was Mr Adoke, a
They also include the Nigerian subsidiaries of Eni and
Also charged in the case was
The defendants also include
Also charged along with them is Malabu itself, a firm which has been at the centre of the controversy since 1998.
"Evidence insufficient against Adoke, others"
But of all the defendants, EFCC said it only has sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute
"Having evaluated the evidence adduced by the ten prosecution witnesses including the exhibits tendered during the trial, the prosecution has no desire to arguing against the no case submission made by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7tth defendants with regard to counts 1, 2, 3. 4 and 5.
"The decision is anchored on paucity of evidence available to sustain any of the ingredients required to establish each of the offences preferred against the six defendants," the EFCC prosecutor, Offem Uket, wrote in the filing in response to Mr Adoke's no-case submission.
As a result of this,
In what implied a call on the court to discharge and possibly acquit the rest of the defendants,
Adoke's contention
Mr Adoke's no-case submission, filed
He anchored this prayer on the basis that the prosecution, after closing its case with 10 witnesses, "has not made out any case" against him.
He argued through his lawyer,
"Not a single witness called by the prosecution said a single word implicating the 1st defendant,"
The prosecution having failed to discharge the burden of proof as expected under
In his analysis of the evidence against his client,
But Mr Adoke's lawyer argued that, although the allegation is a serious one, it was "casually abandoned" by the prosecution.
In the last amended charge, the EFCC alleged that Mr Adoke received gratification of N300 million in the exercise of his official functions contrary to section 116(b)of the Penal Code.
Faulting this count and other allegations levelled by the agency as generally vague, Mr Adoke's lawyer argued that the functions of the office that he was alleged to have exercised was not specified.
"The person who offered the gratification is not specified. The purpose for which the gratification was offered is not stated. Not a single witness mentioned the name of the 1st defendant in connection with this offence,"
The defence lawyer also said his client was charged in one of the counts along with the fourth to the seventh defendants that they conspired amongst themselves, as public servants, to disobey a direction of law with intent to cause injury contrary to section 97(1) of the Penal Code."
He added, "The direction of law alleged to have been disobeyed is not specified. The kind of injury which the defendant is alleged to have intended to cause is not specified. Not a single witness gave any evidence implicating the 1st defendant. The charge is obviously bad for vagueness."
Further analysing the charges, the senior lawyer faulted the count alleging that Mr Adoke knowingly disobeyed the direction of the Companies Income Tax Act by intending to save the 5th - 7th defendants from charges of tax to which they are liable to the Federal Government through the OPL 245 resolution agreement contrary to section 123(c)of the Penal Code.
"Not a single witness mentioned the name of the 1st defendant in connection with this offence," he said.
Commenting on the overall evidence presented against his client, the lawyer said "essential elements of the offences charged have not been proved" and that "there is no evidence linking the 1st defendant with the commission of the offences charged".
Other defendants are likely to have canvassed similar arguments, but PREMIUM TIMES have yet to obtain their filings.
Adoke goes free amidst prosecution's three witnesses a year
EFCC prosecutor,
Moments after the 10th prosecution witness,
But four defence lawyers representing six of the seven defendants in the case opposed the request for an adjournment, insisting that it would violate a previous ruling of the court closing the window for seeking another adjournment against the prosecution.
Paul Erokoro (SAN), also representing Mr Adoke, added that it was too late for the EFCC to ask for any further adjournments.
Except the lawyer representing Malabu, Reuben Atabo, also a SAN, who opted to leave the decision on the prosecutor's request for adjournment to the discretion of the judge, other defence lawyers -
Ruling on the issue, the trial judge, Idris Kutigi, upheld the objection to the request for another adjournment, holding that it was not backed by any cogent reason.The judge recalled that the defendants were arraigned on
The judge recalled that as far back as
"It is obvious here that the prosecution has been given more than ample time to get his witness," Mr Kutigi said.
He added that even though fair hearing is key in any well conducted proceeding, "No parties, including the prosecution, have till eternity to present their case."
"The implication of how the prosecution has conducted this case is that three witnesses have been called in every year the case has lasted in court," Mr Kutigi said.
He added that the presumption of innocence that defendants are entitled to "will have no meaning if a criminal trial drags on interminably without a decision in reasonable time one way or the other."
"On the whole, on the basis of absence of cogent reason to support the application for adjournment, and the law which equally does not support the call for an adjournment, the application for adjournment is refused and the prosecution is called to proceed its case," the judge ruled.
With no witness available in court,
In response, all the defence lawyers said they would be filing a no-case submission on behalf of their clients.
The court gave the defendants 21 days to submit and serve their filings, while the prosecution would also have 21 days from the date of being served with them to file its replies to them.
The judge then adjourned until 12 January (Friday) for adoption.
Implications of EFCC's concession to lack of evidence
With EFCC's conceding it lacked evidence to secure the conviction of key defendants in the case, it implies the court will be left with no other choice than to rule in favour of suspects, in the same fashion an Italian court acquitted
Italian prosecutors alleged that some executives of the companies involved in the Malabu deal knew that much of the
The Malabu saga involved the transfer of about
Eni,
The Italian court ruled in
After a possible discharge or acquittal of Mr Adoke, the oil companies and other key defendants in the ongoing Nigerian case in
In his petition that triggered EFCC's investigations into the Malabu saga in 2012, Mohammed Abacha, a son of the late
But over time, the shares of Malabu were serially restructured and reallotted under controversial circumstances, according to the EFCC, to give
Copyright 2024 Premium Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com)., source