The Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission, EFCC on Tuesday July 9, 2013 asked the Abuja Division of the Court of
Appeal to set aside the July 4 ruling of Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal
High Court, Abuja
discharging Dr. Hassan Muhammed Lawal, former minister of works and his alleged accomplice, Adesanye Adewale of the 8-count
charge of money laundering filed against them by the anti- graft agency.
Justice Bello had discharged the duo based
on a no case submission by the accused persons.
In the notice of appeal filed before the
appellate court, EFCC is seeking a review of the ruling of the lower court on
two grounds: One, that the trial judge erred in law and acted without
jurisdiction thereby occasioning a gross miscarriage of justice when he failed
to deliver the ruling, the subject matter of the appeal, within the period of
ninety (90) days prescribed by constitutional provisions; second, that the
trial court erred by upholding and granting the 1st and 2nd
respondents application for a no case submission in spite of the evidential
materials, oral and documentary, before the court.
According to Wahab Shittu, counsel to the EFCC, the ruling was a miscarriage of justice as it was given
two hundred and eight days after EFCC had adopted its final written
address on the ‘No Case Submission’ of the defence.
He stated that owing to the delay, the
trial court has lost touch with the trend of evidence and the demeanour of
witnesses and parties to the proceedings.
He added that the prosecution had placed
sufficient material before the court to warrant explanation from the 1st
and 2nd respondents, adding that the evidence presented by the
prosecution was neither discredited as a result of cross-examination nor
manifestly unreliable in the circumstances to warrant the discharge of the
accused.
Furthermore the anti- graft agency holds
that it was premature at the stage of trial for the Judge to determine if
evidence was sufficient to justify a conviction.
Finally, EFCC submits that the trial judge
erred in holding that the prosecution did not prove that the funds held by the
1st respondents, and by implication the 2nd respondent
did not proceed from an illegal act. “This means that the trial judge did not
direct his mind to the fact that the language of Section 14 and 17 of the Money
Laundering Act to wit…. ‘derived directly or indirectly’ envisages the utility
value of direct and indirect evidence including circumstantial evidence on the
offence alleged against the 1st and 2nd respondents,
Shittu Declared”
No comments:
Post a Comment