After 6 Years, Court Clears Oyo-Ita Of N570m Fraud

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday discharged and acquitted Mrs Winifred Oyo-Ita, former Head of Service (HoS) of the Federation, of alleged money laundering offences, six years after the trial began.

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling on the separate no-case submissions filed by Oyo-Ita and her co-defendants, held that their applications were meritorious.

The former HoS, her Personal Assistant, Ubong Effiok, and seven others had been facing alleged money laundering charge to the tune of N570 million.

Justice Omotosho, in the ruling, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s case “was built on the quicksand of speculations, suspicions and shoddy investigation.”

According to the judge, I must say here that the case presented by the prosecution has no weight whatsoever.

“Crucial elements of money laundering offences which are the establishment of a predicate offence were glaringly absent in this case presented by the prosecution,” Justice Omotosho said.

The judge held that Oyo-Ita, who was the 1st defendant in the 18-count charge, was not a shareholder or director in the companies allegedly linked to her.

Justice Omotosho also held that the monies allegedly given to the ex-HoS by the 3rd prosecution witness (PW-3) and PW-5 had not been shown to be proceeds of illegal activity.

“Those contracts were duly approved and executed as confirmed by PW-7 and PW-8.

“Even the Estacodes, Duty Tour Allowances (DTAs) and air tickets paid by PW-4 to 7th defendant (Ubong Effiok) for the benefit of 1st defendant (Oyo-Ita) have also been shown to have been duly approved and that the 1st defendant was not an approving authority.”

According to the judge, her alleged failure to fully disclose her assets was also not thoroughly investigated and the result is a case that is doomed to fail.

“In final analysis, the no-case submissions filed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants on the one hand, the 4th – 6th defendants and the 7th to 9th defendants are meritorious.

“Consequently, these no-case submissions are hereby upheld.

“Accordingly, the 1st – 9th defendants are hereby discharged and acquitted of the 18-count charge,” Justice Omotosho ruled.

NAN reports that the EFCC had, on Feb. 28, 2020, filed the 18.counts against Oyo-Ita, Frontline Ace Global Services Ltd and Asanaya Projects Ltd as 1st to 3rd defendants.

The commission, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/20/2020, also named Garba Umar, Slopes International Ltd, Gooddeal Investments Ltd, Ubong Okon Effiok and U & U Global Services Ltd as 4th to 9th defendants respectfully.

The defendants were being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to DTAs, Estacodes, conference fees fraud and receiving kick-backs on contracts to the tune of N570 million.

In count one, Oyo-Ita, while serving as a deputy director in the Federal Ministry of Power, and Frontline Ace Global Services Ltd, a company incorporated in Nigeria and of which she was alleged to be the sole signatory of its bank accounts at Zenith Bank, were alleged to have, sometime in April, 2010, committed the offence.

The ex-HoS and the company were alleged to have collaborated in disguising the genuine ownership of the sum of N20 million paid by the ministry into the Frontline Ace Zenith Bank account number: 1011518656 which sum was derived directly from an illegal act.

The offence is punishable under Section 14(1)b) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004, among other counts.

Oyo-Ita and her co-defendants, who were first arraigned on March 23, 2020, before Justice Taiwo Taiwo (rtd.), pleaded not guilty to the 18 counts.

The case was, however, reassigned to Justice Omotosho after Justice Taiwo’s retirement.

The EFCC, in the trial, called eight witnesses and tendered documentary evidence to establish its case.

After the prosecution closed its case, the defendants opt for a no-case submission.

The defendants, who argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any ingredient of the offences against them beyond reasonable doubt to warrant any defence whatsoever, submitted that the commission had not made out a prima facie case against them.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Omotosho observed that a no-case submission is a situation where there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution on which the court can convict a defendant or for him to enter his defence.

According to him, It can also mean a situation where it appears to the court that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case.

“The law presumes an accused person to be innocent until the contrary is proved and as such asking him to enter his defence will amount to asking him to prove his innocence,” he said.

The judge, who listed what the court must look out for in upholding or dismissing a no-case submission in line with Section 303 of ACJA, held that the evidence led by the prosecution had not shown that the sums of monies in counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the charge were tainted with unlawful activities.

“The law is trite that to establish money laundering offences, the prosecution is expected to establish a predicate offence first before the issues of disguising, concealing the origin or conversion of properties comes in,” he said.

According to him, the allegation made by the prosecution is only that monies were paid into the account of Frontline Ace Global Resources Limited.

“The prosecution did not provide any shred of evidence to show that the monies are tainted with illegality.

“It is not enough to simply say that monies were paid into the accounts from the Federal Ministry of Power without an explanation of what the payments were for.

“Relying on the scanty evidence of the prosecution will be engaging in speculations.

“Criminal trials require credible proof and not speculations or suspicions.

“Besides there are no complaints from the Federal Ministry of Power alleging that monies were illegally paid into the accounts of 2nd defendant for which the 1st defendant is a signatory of the accounts,” he said.

The judge also observed that Oyo-Ita was neither a director nor shareholder in the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

“PW-7 and PW-8, who investigated this matter, admitted that she (Oyo-Ita) is not a shareholder or director of the companies.

“The implication of this is that she cannot be said to be the owner of the accounts.

“The 2nd and 3rd defendants as corporate entities are distinct from the 1st defendant even if she is the sole signatory of the accounts.

“Not being a director or shareholder of the companies, she cannot bind the companies,” the judge said.

Justice Omotosho held that the evidence of PW-4, who testified on the issue of estacode and duty allowances, was materially deficient and failed to advance the prosecution’s case.

“Notably, PW-4 did not provide any evidence establishing that the 1st defendant failed to embark on the official journeys in question.

“There is no proof before the court that estacodes or duty allowances were approved and subsequently collected without the corresponding trips being undertaken.

“The prosecution has, in effect, invited the court to engage in speculation.

“Crucially, no documentary evidence was tendered to demonstrate the approval of any such journeys.

“There are no memos, travel authorisations, or official records identifying the specific trips allegedly approved, the dates of such approvals, or the amounts sanctioned as estacode or duty allowance.

“The evidence on record is completely silent on these essential particulars.

“Furthermore, this court takes judicial notice of the fact that under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, failure by a public officer to embark on duly approved official travel would ordinarily trigger administrative consequences, including the issuance of an audit query.

“However, there is no evidence before this court that any such query was issued to the 1st defendant.”

According to the judge, this omission is significant and undermines the prosecution’s theory.

“In addition, this court takes judicial notice of the fact that estacodes and duty tour allowances are calculated based on distance, duration of stay, mode of travel and other connected factors.

“There is no document showing how the estacodes and duty tour allowances were calculated or how much exactly was given to the 1st defendant for any such trips.

“The case of the prosecution is merely assertion, conjecture and speculation without concrete evidence.”

The judge held that mere tendering of copies of Oyo-Ita’s international passports was not enough as there was no evidence of which particular country and dates of travel was brought before the court to determine that she did not actually embark on the journeys.

“In addition, apart from PW-4, no witness from the Civil Service Commission or any relevant administrative body was called to testify on the approval process, the existence of the alleged trips, or any disciplinary measures arising from a failure to undertake them.

“There is no evidence identifying the specific journeys approved, the sums involved or any official finding that the 1st defendant defaulted in carrying out those trips.

“This court also thinks that evidence of the dates for the said journeys, the dates the 1st defendant ought to return and approvals for such journeys ought to have been brought before the court by the prosecution.”

The judge said it was not the duty of the 1st defendant to furnish the court with these evidence.

“That burden is strictly that of the prosecution and it has failed to discharge its burden of proof.

“The cumulative effect of these evidentiary gaps is fatal to the prosecution’s case on this issue.

“The prosecution failed to lead the necessary evidence that would have enabled the court to determine whether or not the 1st defendant received estacodes for journeys not undertaken.

“In the absence of such evidence, the allegation remains unproven and the 1st defendant cannot be called to enter a defence,” Justice Omotosho said.

The judge said the offences in counts 5, 6, 7 and 13 are contrary to Section 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).

Justice Omotosho equally described the evidence of the EFCC in other counts as watery.

The judge, therefore, found that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, all the alleged contracts, leading to some.of the counts, were duly awarded and executed.

Earlier, the judge ruled on the objections of Oyo-Ita, Umar and Effiok on the admissibility of their confessional statements which they argued were not obtained in compliance with Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

The judge agreed with the defence that the objections raised by the 1st, 4th and 7th defendants touched on a mandatory statutory provision which had received judicial imprimatur by the Supreme Court.

He said that where a confessional statement is to be made, there must be a video recording session of the statement taking in the absence of the defendants’ lawyer.

“This court will toe the path of the Supreme Court by holding that these statements marked as Exhibits V – V3, Exhibits W-W1 and Exhibits PWXX-PWXX9 are hereby marked rejected and thus expunged from evidence,” he ruled.

Oyo-Ita, Umar and Effiok had alleged that their confessional statements were not made voluntarily.

The defendants, through their lawyers, argued that while the statements were being obtained, the defence lawyers were neither present nor had the prosecution been able to tender video recordings of the statement taking sessions.

Justice Omotosho then ordered a trial-within-trial to ascertain the voluntariness of their claims and reserved the ruling until today.

Oyo-Ita was sacked by the late President Muhammadu Buhari government on Sept. 18, 2019 after allegations of corruption and replaced by Mrs Folashade Yemi-Esan, who was the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum Resources at the time.