Matilda Omonaiye/
Four Ukrainians and a vessel charged with them for illegal oil bunkering by the Federal Government of Nigeria have been discharged and acquitted at a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt.
Vaskov Andriy, Garchev Mykhaylo, Shula Madyslay, Orlovkyi Lyvan and a chartered Vessel MT San Pedro PIO were arraigned and tried before the court on Initial two-count charge of conspiracy to deal in petroleum products and dealing in petroleum products without a permit. The charge was later amended and increased to six counts.
Justice Adamu Turaki Mohammed discharged and acquitted the four Ukrainians and their ship after finding them not guilty on all the six counts.
They were arraigned on March 21, 2019
In his verdict, Justice Muhammed declared that there was no evidence that they broke the law; consequently, he ordered that their vessel, which was seized, should be released forthwith.
The offences of conspiracy to deal in petroleum products, dealing in petroleum products, making false documents and uttering documents allegedly committed by the defendants are contrary to sections 3(6) and 1(17)(a), 1 (2)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, 2007.
They all pleaded not guilty to the charge.
According to the prosecution, MT San Padre Pio and a 16 all-male crew were arrested by the Nigerian Navy in September 2018.
During the trial, the team of the prosecuting counsels led by Samuel Chime called nine witnesses and tendered 10 exhibits.
However, the defendants denied the allegation, and in their defence, their counsel, Barrister Babajide Koku SAN, who led six other senior counsels called five witnesses and tendered three exhibits.
Koku contended that the allegation was baseless because the defendants obtained appropriate authorization for their operations.
In his verdict, Justice Mohammed upheld Koku’s submission and said the prosecution failed to prove its case.
The judge declare that “by virtue of the sale agreement between AUGUST A Energy and ANOSYKE Group of Companies, the amended purchase order together with evidence of Prosecution witness 6 under cross-examination, who admitted that the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) import permit is valid, I have no doubt that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the defendants had no license or authority to deal in Petroleum Product. I so hold.
“…Again, Exhibit A1 -Navy verification certificate has shown that Naval approval was obtained in respect of Exhibit J, product (cargo) onboard while the Department of Petroleum Resources import permit attached to Exhibit 63 has shown that the necessary permit was equally secured in respect of Exhibit J from the DPR.
“It is clear both from Exhibit A1- Navy verification certificate and the DPR permit, that the company in whose favour the approvals were granted is ANOSYKE Group of Companies.
“Similarly, as I have held above that the Prosecution has failed to prove Count 2 of the charge against the Defendants, I am equally unable to infer, from the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, how the Defendants conspired with each other to, without lawful authority or appropriate license, import, distribute or deal in/with Petroleum Product, as contained in Count 1; particularly having regard to Exhibit A1 and the DPR permit attached to exhibit G3 -the letter of their solicitor. I so hold.
Accordingly, therefore, the defendants are found not guilty as charged and are hereby discharged and acquitted.
0