Court Admits $1m Recovered From Ex-Air Chief, Umar In Evidence

118

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, Thursday, admitted in evidence, over $1m  that was allegedly recovered from the residence of a former Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Mohammed Umar.

The former Air Chief who was a member of the Presidential Committee on procurement of arms and equipment in the Armed Forces is facing a money-laundering trial alongside his company, Easy Jet Integrated Services Limited.

Trial Justice Inyang Ekwo admitted several foreign currencies the Federal Government tendered in evidence against the defendants.

FG told the court that the foreign currencies were retrieved from Umar’s house by operatives of the Department of State Service, DSS.

Other currencies the prosecution tendered through a DSS operative, Stephen Olatubosun, who appeared as the lone witness in the matter, were 2, 640, 500 CFP Franc, 120, 000 Barbados dollars, five Caribbean dollars, 72 Trinidad & Tobago dollars, and N1.3million.

The monies were brought before the court in three bags marked A, B and C.

The court admitted the bags of money in evidence and marked them as Exhibits PW- C1, C2 and C3.

Justice Ekwo ordered the Chief Registrar of the court to transfer all the exhibits to the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, for safekeeping.

Meanwhile, under cross-examination, the witness, Olatubosun, told the court that he was not part of the team that searched the Defendant’s house.

Responding to questions from counsel to the Defendants, Hassan Liman, the witness, said: “I did not visit the house of the Defendant. I did not also take his statement.

“However, based on a report in the case-file of the officer that went for the assignment, the source of the currency is from the Defendant’s residence.

“I am not the author of the report. To the best of my knowledge, Defendant is a businessman, but I don’t know the kind of business he is into.

“I did not personally investigate the 2nd Defendant”, the witness added.

Shortly after the witness concluded his evidence and was discharged, the Prosecution counsel, Shuaibu Labaran, closed his case after telling the court he has no other witness in the matter.

On their part, the Defendants notified the court of their intention to make a no-case-submission in the case.

A no-case-submission is made when a Defendant in a criminal trial is convinced that the Prosecution failed to by way of credible evidence, establish a prima-facie case capable of warranting the court to compel him to enter a defence to the charge.

In a short ruling, trial Justice Ekwo gave the Defendants 21 days to file their no-case-submission, even as he gave the Prosecution seven days upon receipt of the processes, to file its response.

The court held that the Defendants are at liberty to within two days after they are served with the Prosecution’s response, to file their reply to it, if any.

More so, the court warned the parties to ensure that their written addresses would not be more than 10 pages.

It subsequently adjourned to matter till April 27 for the parties to adopt their processes.

Aside from money laundering, the former Air Chief was also charged for illegal possession of firearms and violation of the secret act.

FG alleged that he was in possession of two pump action guns without valid licenses, contrary to Section 4 of the Firearms Act, 2004.

He was further accused of having in his possession, classified/official documents without lawful authority, contrary to Section 1(1) (b) of the Official Secrets Act Cap. O3 LFN, 2004.

Count one of the charges against him, read: “That you, Air Commodore Umar Mohammed (rtd), 54 years, male and Easy Jet Integrated Services Ltd on or about 19th June 2016, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, received the sum of one million, thirty thousand American Dollars ($1,030,000) in cash from Worldwide Consortium PTY Ltd, as payment for freight services, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (2) (b ) of the Money Laundering Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15 (3) and (4) of the same section of the Act.”

Comments are closed.