The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, discharged and acquitted a former Head of Service of the Federation, Winifred Oyo-Ita, of money laundering charges involving ₦570 million.

The judgment came six years after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) filed an 18-count charge against her and eight others over allegations bordering on fraud, kickbacks, Duty Tour Allowances, estacodes and conference fees.

Justice James Omotosho, in his ruling on separate no-case submissions filed by Oyo-Ita and her co-defendants, held that the applications had merit and that the prosecution failed to establish a case requiring the defendants to enter a defence.

The judge said the case filed by the EFCC “was built on the quicksand of speculations, suspicions and shoddy investigation.”

“I must say here that the case presented by the prosecution has no weight whatsoever,” Omotosho said.

‘EFCC Failed To Prove Predicate Offence’
Justice Omotosho held that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial elements of money laundering.

According to him, before a defendant can be called to answer a money laundering charge, the prosecution must first establish a predicate offence showing that the money in question was derived from unlawful activity.

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

The judge added that the EFCC did not present evidence showing that the funds mentioned in the charge were proceeds of crime.

He said the law required proof that the money was tainted by illegality before issues of concealment, disguise or conversion could arise.

“The law is clear 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 come in,” he said.

Omotosho said the prosecution merely alleged that money was paid into the account of Frontline Ace Global Resources Limited without explaining what the payments were for or proving that they were illegal.

According to him, it was not enough for the prosecution to say that money came from the Federal Ministry of Power.

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

“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 the second defendant for which the 1st defendant is a signatory to the accounts.”

The judge held that the evidence led by the prosecution did not show that the sums mentioned in counts one, two, three and four were linked to unlawful activities.

‘Oyo-Ita Not Shareholder, Director In Companies’ – Judge
The court also held that Oyo-Ita, who was the first defendant in the case, was neither a shareholder nor a director in the companies allegedly linked to her.

Justice Omotosho noted that the EFCC’s seventh and eighth prosecution witnesses, who investigated the matter, admitted under evidence that the former Head of Service was not a shareholder or director in the companies.

“PW-7 and PW-8, who investigated this matter, admitted that she is not a shareholder or director of the companies,” the judge said.

“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 held that the companies, being separate legal entities, could not automatically be treated as belonging to Oyo-Ita simply because she allegedly signed some of their bank documents.

The court further held that the contracts relied upon by the EFCC in some counts of the charge were shown to have been duly approved and executed.

Justice Omotosho said the seventh and eighth prosecution witnesses confirmed that the contracts were properly awarded and carried out.

He said, “Those contracts were duly approved and executed as confirmed by the seventh and the eighth prosecution witnesses.”

The judge also held that the monies allegedly given to Oyo-Ita by the third and fifth prosecution witnesses were not shown to be proceeds of any illegal act.

He said the EFCC did not prove that the payments were kickbacks or that they came from unlawful sources.

Justice Omotosho added that the prosecution’s evidence on several counts was “watery” and insufficient to sustain the charges.

The judge also considered the allegations relating to estacodes, Duty Tour Allowances, and air tickets allegedly paid by the fourth prosecution witness to Oyo-Ita’s personal assistant, Ubong Effiok, for her benefit.

He held that the prosecution failed to prove that Oyo-Ita received allowances for trips she did not undertake.

Omotosho said the evidence before the court showed that the estacodes, DTAs and air tickets were duly approved and that Oyo-Ita was not the approving authority.

“Even the Estacodes, Duty Tour Allowances and air tickets paid by PW-4 to the seventh defendant, Ubong Effiok, for the benefit of first defendant, Oyo-Ita, have also been shown to have been duly approved and that the first defendant was not an approving authority,” he ruled.

He added that the EFCC failed to provide details of the specific trips, dates, approvals and amounts allegedly involved.

No Proof Oyo-Ita Skipped Official Trips – Omotosho
Justice Omotosho said the fourth prosecution witness, who testified on estacodes and duty allowances, failed to provide evidence that Oyo-Ita did not embark on the official journeys for which allowances were allegedly paid.

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

“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.”

The judge said no documentary evidence was tendered to prove the approvals of the alleged journeys.

According to him, the prosecution did not present memos, travel authorisations or official records showing the specific trips allegedly approved, the dates of approval or the amounts sanctioned as estacodes or duty allowances.

“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,” the judge said.

Court Faults Absence Of Audit Query
The court also said that if a public officer failed to embark on a duly approved official trip after receiving estacodes or Duty Tour Allowance, such failure would ordinarily attract administrative action under civil service rules.

Justice Omotosho said there was no evidence before the court that any query was issued to Oyo-Ita.

“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 first defendant,” the Judge noted.

He said the omission was significant and weakened the prosecution’s position.

According to him, the EFCC also failed to show how the estacodes and Duty Tour Allowances were calculated.

“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,” Omotosho stated.

Justice Omotosho held that merely tendering copies of Oyo-Ita’s international passports was not sufficient to prove that she failed to travel.

He said the prosecution should have placed before the court evidence of the specific countries, dates of travel and approved journeys allegedly involved.

The judge said, “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.”

He further noted that no witness from the Civil Service Commission or any relevant administrative body was called to testify on the approval process, the alleged trips or any disciplinary action arising from failure to undertake the journeys.

According to him, it was the duty of the prosecution, not the defendant, to supply such evidence.

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

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

The court also faulted the allegation that Oyo-Ita failed to fully disclose her assets.

Justice Omotosho said the allegation was not thoroughly investigated and that the poor handling of the issue resulted in a case that could not succeed.

According to him, the EFCC failed to present the necessary evidence that would have enabled the court to draw a conclusion against the former Head of Service.

He held that the alleged non-disclosure of assets, like the other allegations, was not proved to the level required in a criminal trial.

Court Rejects Alleged Confessional Statements
Earlier in the ruling, Justice Omotosho considered objections raised by Oyo-Ita, Garba Umar and Ubong Effiok over the admissibility of their alleged confessional statements.

The defendants had argued that the statements were not voluntarily made and were not obtained in compliance with Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

Their lawyers argued that the statements were taken without the presence of defence counsel and without video recordings of the statement-taking sessions.

The judge agreed with the defence, holding that the objections touched on mandatory statutory provisions which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

He said that where a confessional statement is obtained in the absence of a defendant’s lawyer, there must be a video recording of the process.

“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.

The court had earlier conducted a trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness of the statements before reserving ruling until Tuesday.

Justice Omotosho explained that a no-case submission arises where the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence upon which the court can convict a defendant or call the defendant to enter a defence.

He said it could also arise where the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

According to him, under the law, an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“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 also referred to Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which provides the conditions a court must consider in determining whether to uphold or dismiss a no-case submission.

He held that the evidence presented by the EFCC was not strong enough to warrant calling the defendants to defend themselves.

“In final analysis, the no-case submissions filed by the first, second and third defendants on the one hand, the fourth to the sixth defendants and the seventh to the ninth defendants are meritorious.

“Consequently, these no-case submissions are hereby upheld. Accordingly, the first to the ninth defendants are hereby discharged and acquitted of the 18-count charge,” Justice Omotosho ruled.

Defendants Faced 18-count Charge
Naija News reports that the EFCC had, on February 28, 2020, filed an 18-count charge against Oyo-Ita and eight others.

The defendants in the case marked FHC/ABJ/CR/20/2020 were Oyo-Ita, Frontline Ace Global Services Ltd, Asanaya Projects Ltd, Garba Umar, Slopes International Ltd, Gooddeal Investments Ltd, Ubong Okon Effiok and U & U Global Services Ltd.

They were accused of alleged fraud relating to DTAs, estacodes, conference fees and alleged kickbacks on contracts to the tune of ₦570m.

In count one, the EFCC alleged that Oyo-Ita, while serving as a deputy director in the Federal Ministry of Power, and Frontline Ace Global Services Ltd committed an offence in April 2010.

The company was alleged to be incorporated in Nigeria, with Oyo-Ita accused of being the sole signatory to its Zenith Bank accounts.

The EFCC alleged that Oyo-Ita and the company collaborated to disguise the genuine ownership of ₦20m paid by the Federal Ministry of Power into Frontline Ace’s Zenith Bank account number 1011518656.

The commission alleged that the money was derived directly from an illegal act.

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

Oyo-Ita and her co-defendants were first arraigned on March 23, 2020, before Justice Taiwo Taiwo, who has since retired.

They pleaded not guilty to all 18 counts.

Following Justice Taiwo’s retirement, the case was reassigned to Justice Omotosho.

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

After the prosecution closed its case, the defendants elected to file no-case submissions, arguing that the EFCC had failed to establish the ingredients of the offences against them beyond a reasonable doubt.

They also submitted that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case requiring them to enter a defence.

Oyo-Ita was removed from office on September 18, 2019, by the administration of the late former President Muhammadu Buhari following corruption allegations.

She was replaced by Folashade Yemi-Esan, who was at the time the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum Resources.

With Tuesday’s ruling, the court brought the six-year trial to an end after holding that the EFCC failed to prove the charges against Oyo-Ita and the other defendants.