Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja has upheld the “no case submission” by the former Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), over the alleged charge of money laundering preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
In his verdict on Friday, Justice Ekwo held that the EFCC did not provide any evidence to prove the essential elements of the offence against Adoke (the first defendant).
Justice Ekwo further upheld the “no case submission” of Adoke and consequently discharged and acquitted him from the charge.
It is instructive to note that the EFCC had brought Adoke and Aliyu to court in 2017 and filed alleged N300million money laundering suit against them.
Adoke had in 2011, taken a mortgage of N300 million from Unity Bank to buy a property valued at N500 million from Abubakar.
But he failed to pay his own equity contribution of N200 million and the mortgage was cancelled in 2013.
Abubakar said he returned the N300 million to Unity Bank after finding a new buyer — the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
But in 2017, the EFCC accused Adoke of handing the dollar equivalent of N300 million to Rislanudeen Mohammed, then acting managing director of Unity Bank, to refund the loan.
The commission said it was a breach of money laundering laws as it was above the N10million threshold allowed, arguing further that a bureau de change (BDC) — which the bank used to convert the dollar to naira — is not a financial institution.
The anti-graft agency consequently accused Adoke and Abubakar of conspiring to commit money laundering offence.
Incidentally, there is no mention of the OPL 245 transaction in the matter before Justice Ekwo but the same particulars were also charged by the EFCC before Justice Abubakar Kutigi of the FCT High Court in 2020.
The EFCC had admitted before Justice Ekwo that it was a mortgage that Adoke took from Unity Bank while it alleged before Justice Kutigi that the money was a bribe from the sale of the OPL 245 oil block by Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd in 2011.
But on March 28, 2024, Justice Kutigi pointed out the contradiction and dismissed the charge against Adoke and other defendants.
Justice Kutigi further blasted EFCC for wasting the court’s time for four years.
Delivering his verdict in the matter on Friday Justice Ekwo held that the evidence brought by the EFCC against former AGF Adoke was defective and could not be relied upon by any “reasonable court”.
According to Justice Ekwo , the EFCC did not provide any evidence to prove the essential elements of the offence against Adoke.
In his pronouncement on the first count which borders on conspiracy to commit felony, Justice Ekwo held that the EFCC failed to provide the essential elements of conspiracy.
The judge further described count one as “inherently ambiguous”, saying that “there is no definite allegation as to who between Adoke and Abubakar , made or accepted the payment”. He said, “This cannot be left to any conjecture or assumption. This is an incompetent or bad charge and the effect thereof is fatal.”
Regarding count two, the judge held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses (PWs) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and the exhibits tendered in evidence “had nothing to do with the allegation” contained against Adoke.
Justice Ekwo further held that although PW8 mentioned the sum of N300 million four times in his evidence-in-chief, the witness insisted that the money was the refund of the 1st defendant (Adoke) in respect of the property he wanted to purchase with a mortgage.
The judge also held that the EFCC ought to have withdrawn count two after PW3, Usman Bello, a BDC operator, admitted that he had no direct dealings with Adoke.
On count three, the court held that the cash transaction of $2,267,400 between Adoke and Rislanudeen Mohammed, then acting managing director of Unity Bank, was not in violation of Sec 16(1)(d) of the Money Laundering Provision Act.
Mohammed had in his evidence-in-chief as the second prosecution witness for the EFCC, claimed he collected the $2,267,400 cash from Adoke on behalf of the bank and gave it to a BDC to convert to naira to refund the mortgage.
He said after the money was repaid, the bank returned the land documents to Abubakar and closed Adoke’s mortgage account.
The judge then said, “The provision of Sec 16(1)(d) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act prohibits any person from making or accepting cash payment exceeding the amount authorised under which is N5m or its equivalent in the case of an individual except in transaction through a financial institution.”
According to the judge, the financial institutions referred to in the law include banks and BDCs.
He said, “The provision of sections 1(a) and 16(1)(d) of the said Act does not forbid paying cash to financial institutions like banks or BDCs.
“There is a need for caution in the manner of interpretation of section 1(a) and 16(1)(d) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act. Otherwise, people will be constrained to keep money in their houses or other places to the chagrin of the economy of the country.
“I do not think that the legislature by those provisions, intended to create an offence for cash being deposited in Banks or taken to BDC to change same from one currency to another.”
Justice Ekwo rather said the provisions cited by the EFCC prohibit trading that is buying and selling or relative transaction with a physical exchange of cash in the prohibited sum.
On count four which alleged that Adoke disguised the origin of the sum in the charge, Justice Ekwo held that the Act relied upon by the EFCC “does not make provision for the offence of disguise”.
The judge further held that, “This must be an invasion of the drafting of the charge in this case which intention is contrary to the spirit and letter of the law upon which the charge is predicated.
“The law is that those who draft charges must do so in a manner that reflects the actual words used in the statutory provision and not invent their own words or offences or attempt to fit same into the wordings of the status.
The judge then said, “The defect in count four is fatal and for that, I make an order dismissing the count for the defect which I have stated.
“On the whole… I find that there is no evidence to prove the essential elements of the alleged offences in counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the first defendant (Adoke).
“Upon the above, I find that the evidence of the prosecution against the first defendant is manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal or court can safely convict on it.
“Consequently, the no-case submission of the 1st defendant is upheld.”
But Justice Ekwo held that Abubakar (the second defendant), has to open his defence on the grounds that he has a case to answer on counts 5, 6, 8 and 9 which are not related to Adoke.
