The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Monday, discharged and acquitted Stephen Oronsaye, former Head of Service of the Federation, of the N2 billion money laundering charge the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, preferred against him.
The court, in a judgment that was delivered by trial Justice Inyang Ekwo, held that the anti-graft agency failed to by way of credible evidence, establish its case against the former HoS.
EFCC had in 2015, charged Oronsaye before the court alongside the Managing Director of Fedrick Hamilton Global Services Limited, Osarenkhoe Afe, and three companies- Cluster Logistic Limited; Kangolo Dynamic Cleaning Limited, and Drew Investment & Construction Company Limited.
It alleged that the 1st and 2nd defendants had between 2010 and 2011, used the firms and siphoned public funds totaling about N2 billion, through procurement fraud.
EFCC further alleged that the funds were subsequently diverted into private accounts by the defendants.
Delivering his judgment on the matter, trial Justice Ekwo held that the totality of the evidence the anti-graft agency adduced in the course of the trial was not convincing enough to move the court to convict Oronsaye and Afe.
The court held that after it evaluated the testimony of witnesses the EFCC produced before it, it found that there was nothing in their evidence that linked Oronsaye with offences alleged against him in the charge.
Justice Ekwo said he was convinced that Oronsaye’s trial was a deliberate witch-hunt exercise by the anti-graft agency.
In the case against the 2nd defendant, Afe, the court held that his constitutional right was breached, noting that he was arrested on February 24, 2011, after EFCC operatives invaded his house and carted away his properties, files, and documents.
The court held that the said files, which would have aided his defense in the case, were not returned to him by the Commission.
It held that under section 36(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, every person that is charged with a criminal offense, shall be entitled to be given time and adequate facilities to prepare his defence.
“It appears to me that the prosecution, by the manner it has dealt with the 2nd defendant, has aimed to obtain his conviction by all means.
“A criminal proceeding in breach of a defendant’s constitutional right is liable the be set aside and I so hold.
“I make an order setting aside these proceedings against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is hereby discharged and acquitted”.
However, the court held that evidence of the 17th witness, PW-17, that testified in the case, indicted Afe’s company, Fedrick Hamilton Global Services Limited.
It held that there was incriminating evidence to show that the company gave N40 million, which was part of an inflow into its account, to the already jailed former Pension Reform Task Team, PRTT, Abdulrasheed Maina.
“This evidence was not rebutted. The case against the 3rd defendant concerning counts 22 and 24 has been proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt and I so hold.
“I, therefore, find the 3rd defendant guilty as charged.”
Similarly, the court also found the 6th defendant, Drew Investment & Construction Ltd, a company owned by Maina, guilty.
It held that Maina’s firm was incriminated by the evidence of four witnesses that appeared in the case.
The erstwhile HoS, who adopted his final brief of argument through his team of lawyers led by Ade Okeanya-inneh SAN, had prayed the court to discharge and acquit him of the charge, contending that EFCC failed to prove his complicity in the alleged fraud.
He stressed that though the agency initially entered a 49-count charge against him, it subsequently withdrew 22 of them upon realising that they were not only baseless but also not supported by any evidence.
Testifying as his witness, Oronsaye, accused the agency of deliberately witch-hunting him following a presentation he made before the National Assembly while he was still in office.
He told the court that he ran into trouble after he defended an Executive Bill on the EFCC, at a point when the Commission itself mounted strong opposition against the said Bill.
According to him, shortly after he returned to his office at the end of his presentation at the NASS, the anti-graft agency, summoned him to its office.
He told the court that upon his arrival at the EFCC office on December 7, 2013, he was confronted with all manners of allegations.
Oronsaye told the court that the EFCC had yet to show him a copy of the petition that led to his trial.
The defendant, while enumerating some of the services he rendered to the nation, recalled that he had, at a time, headed five special presidential committees.
He insisted that throughout his tenure in office, he neither signed any payment mandate nor had any dealings with the Bureau of Public Procurement, BPP.
“Contrary to EFCC allegation against me, only staff of the accountant general of the Federation have the power to sign payment mandate”, he added.
While denying the allegation that he had on several occasions, transferred public funds from Union Bank to Unity Bank, the former HoS, also refuted the claim that he operated 66 different bank accounts.
He told the court that EFCC conducted a shoddy investigation before the charge was entered against him.
The defendant further tendered several documents in evidence, among which included a circular on contract threshold that was signed by the then Secretary General of the Federation, Yayale Ahmed.
Other documents the defendant tendered before the court, were EFCC’s interim investigation report on alleged conspiracy and diversion of public funds, as well as the judgment that was delivered in the case of the jailed former pension boss, Maina.
On its part, the EFCC, through its lawyer, Oluwaleke Atolagbe, urged the court to uphold its case and accordingly convict the defendants.
EFCC maintained that the gamut of documentary and oral evidence it produced before the court was capable of establishing the guilt of the defendants.
It, therefore, prayed the court to not only convict them but also make necessary orders for restitution.
EFCC, which called 21 witnesses in the matter, further predicated its request for conviction on the alleged confessional statement it said was made in the course of the trial by the 2nd defendant, Afe.
Comments are closed.