$15.591m Fraud: Companies Linked with Patience Jonathan Appeal Conviction

Ladipo Sanusi/

Four companies convicted for laundering $15.591million, linked to the wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Patience, are seeking to upturn the judgment at a Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal.

The companies, which were convicted by Justice Babs Kuewumi of the Federal High Court, are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Limited, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Limited, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Limited and Avalon Global Property Development Limited.

The four companies during the trial were represented by their purported directors, namely: Friday Davis, Agbor Baro, Dioghowori Frederick and Taiwo Ebenezer, who had pleaded guilty to laundering the money when they were arraigned.

The companies, through their lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), said in the appeal that the identities of those who ‘purportedly’ pleaded guilty on their behalf were ‘unverified’.

According to the firms, the representatives did not present any evidence that they were duly appointed.

The four companies and their purported directors were arraigned before the Court, along with a former Senior Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to President Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa; a lawyer, Amajuoyi Briggs, and a senior staff of Skye Bank Plc, Adedamola Bolodeoku, who all pleaded not guilty.

The convicted companies in the eight-ground Notice of Cross-Appeal, Ozekhome said Section 477 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, requires persons seeking to represent corporate entities to have a statement of their appointment as the recognized representatives.

“The persons purporting to be representing the cross-appellants failed to produce such statement of appointment which needed not to be under seal. And by virtue of Section 478 of the ACJA 2015, the Honourable Court ought to have entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ for the cross-appellants, rather than allow the unverified plea of ‘guilty’ by persons purporting to be representing the cross appellants,” Ozekhome stated.

He recalled that Briggs had vehemently opposed the guilty plea and urged Justice Kuewumi to change it to “not guilty” because of the joint charge and the doubt about the representatives’ authenticity.

Among the grounds of appeal is that the learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to grant Briggs’ application seeking to set aside the plea of ‘guilty’ by the representatives.

Ozekhome also stated that the proof of evidence as borne out by court’s records shows that the purported representatives had denied ever having anything to do with the cross-appellants (companies), who are corporate entities, in their extra judicial statements presented before the Court by the complainant.

He said that the purported representatives of the cross appellant had also alleged that their signatures on the forms CAC 02 and Bank Mandate forms were forged, and that they could not, on the face of incontrovertible facts, including their own extra judicial statements, be taken as the authentic representatives of the cross-appellants to the extent of even pleading ‘guilty’ to a charge against the cross-appellants.

0