First Bank Director Fights to Salvage Diezani’s $153m Loot

Ololade Adeyanju/

Defense Lawyers put in final arguments at a Federal High Court, in Lagos today, to salvage $153.3million allegedly laundered by the Executive Director of First Bank, Mr. Dauda Lawal, on behalf of former petroleum minister, Diezani Allison-Madueke.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), however, insisted that the money is proceed of crime and must be forfeited to the Federal Government.
Lawal’s lawyers told the Court that his client admitted having received the sum of $25million in clear dispensation of his duties, but was coerced by the commission to further admit receiving a total of $65million.
According to him, the sum of $40million was taken as an overdraft from his bank to offset the alleged extra sum.
After hearing the arguments from counsels representing all parties, Justice Muslim Hassan fixed February 16 for judgment.
The Judge had, on January 6, issued an interim order of forfeiture of the money to the Federal Government, following an ex-parte application by EFCC.
The EFCC had initiated the ex-parte application seeking an interim order for the temporary forfeiture of the money linked to Diezani.
The court had issued 14 days notice to any interested party to appear and prove the legitimacy of the monies. If they fail, the funds would be permanently forfeited to the FG.
At the resumed hearing of the case today, Mr Charles Adeogun announced appearance for Lawal who is joined as respondent in the suit. And, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo announced appearance for the EFCC.
Oyedepo informed the court that in line with its interim orders of January 6, the EFCC had served same on Lawal.
He also informed the court that the order was published in the Independent Newspaper of January 12, in compliance with the orders of the court.
Adeogun confirmed the position. He said that he had filed a counter affidavit deposed to by Lawal, challenging the said forfeiture orders.
Arguing his application, he urged the court to issue an order, directing a refund of the sum of N9.08billion to his client, on the grounds that same was obtained by coercion.
He argued that before such forfeiture orders can be made, two essential elements must be satisfied namely: “That the property in question is unclaimed, and that such property or funds form proceeds of an unlawful act.”
He said: “We became aware of the forfeiture order when the interim order was served on us. My client was never confronted with these sets of facts during his incarceration at the EFCC.
“After service of the orders, I requested for the statement of my client to the commission, but same was never given to me.”
He argued that his client admitted having received the sum of $25million in clear dispensation of his duties, but was coerced by the commission to further admit receiving a total of $65million.
According to him, the sum of $40million was taken as an overdraft from his bank to offset the alleged extra sum.
He urged the court to order the immediate refund of the sum to his client.
In his reply, Oyedepo submitted that the tenure of Section 17, of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other related offence Act, makes a property which is reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, forfeitable to the FG.
He said: “Going by the facts and circumstances of this particular case, can it be said that the sum of N9.08 billion which is the naira equivalent of 40 million dollars, was not reasonably suspected to form proceeds of a crime.”
He argued that Paragraph 4 of the applicant’s reply affidavit shows a meeting of the minds of some staff of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) as well as the respondent to launder funds.
Oyedepo added, “My Lord, Paragraph 4 of our reply affidavit shows a meeting of the minds of one Gbenga Komolafe, former Group MD, crude oil marketing division NNPC; Prince Haruna Momoh, former Group MD, Petroleum Product Marketing Company; Umar Farouk Ahmed, Group MD Nigerian Product Marketing Company, as well as Dauda Lawal, to launder funds on behalf of former petroleum minister, Diezani Allison Madueke.
“It will amount to contesting the obvious for Lawal to argue that he had no knowledge of the said sums.”
He further argued that it was uncommon for a law enforcement agency like the EFCC to detain a person in its custody in perpetuity, without an order of the court, adding that the statement of Lawal was lawfully obtained.
“The respondent was duly cautioned before he voluntarily made his statement at the commission, and his lawyer even appended his signature further attesting to the fact that the statements were obtained voluntarily,” he said. “So, having freely volunteered a statement, he cannot urge my Lord not to attach full probative value to his statement.
“I submit that the appropriate order in the circumstance is for the court to order a final forfeiture of the sum of N9.08billion already surrendered by the respondent to the Federal Government.”
He urged the Court to order the forfeiture of other sums to which no claim had been laid.
“I urge the court to so hold,” he said
After listening to the submissions, Justice Hassan fixed February 16 for judgment.