Trials Resume in N440.1m Fraud Charges Against Ex-NIMASA Bosses

Ololade Adeyanju

Hearing resumed at the Federal High Court in Lagos, today, in the separate trials of two former director generals (DG) of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Haruna Jauro and Calistus Obi, over alleged combined N440.1 million fraud.
The defendants, who headed NIMASA in acting capacity at different periods, are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Jaro is accused of defrauding the agency of the sum of N304.1 million, while Obi is alleged to have defrauded the agency to the tune of N136 million during their respective tenures.
In the case of Jauro, the trial-within-trial to test the voluntariness of statements obtained from him by the EFCC commenced before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun.
Jauro is standing trial alongside Dauda Bawa and Thlumbau Enterprises Ltd on a 19-count charge. They were first arraigned on April 12, 2016 and had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The court admitted them to bail in the sum of N5 million each with two sureties each in like sum.
At the last adjourned date, the prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, had called his first witness, Mr Orji Chukwuma, who testified before the court how several sums of money were converted by the accused.
Oyedepo had sought to tender the written statement of the accused as evidence in court, but his move was opposed by defense counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo, who argued that the said statements were not voluntarily obtained.
Ojo urged the court to order a trial-within-trial, to ascertain if the statements were voluntarily obtained by the commission.
The trial judge had, consequently, adjourned the case for a trial-within-trial to be held.
When the case was called on Tuesday, the prosecution commenced proceedings by calling its first witness, Mr Augustine Anosike, who is head of forensic at the EFCC.
The witness informed the court that he personally conducted the video coverage of the endorsement of the statement of the first accused.
He said that the statement was endorsed at the EFCC’s office on March 30, 2016, at about 14:50 hours (2.50pm) by one Mr Akeem Lasisi, who is an operative of the commission.
The prosecutor then applied for a video tape showing the endorsement of the statement of the accused to be played in the open court.
A video tape was then played out in the court with the aid of a projector, showing how the statement of the accused was endorsed by the EFCC operative (Lasisi)
After the video, which lasted about 35 minutes, the defense counsel (Ojo) began his cross examination by asking the witness whether he was present in the room at the time the statement of the accused was endorsed.
In response, the witness told the court that he personally recorded the video of the endorsement process, adding that there was no demarcation in the room where the statement was endorsed.
The witness, however, agreed with the observation of defense counsel that the video recording did not disclose the date of the endorsement, as well as the commencement and termination time of same.
On the questions of whether the accused was informed that the endorsement process would be recorded and whether the recording was edited, the witness answered that it was not shown that the accused was so informed and added that the video was not edited.
Defense counsel then asked the witness to state the process and duration of the recording, as well as inform the court of his qualification in doing same.
In response, the witness told the court that the video recording took place on March 31, 2016, using a DV mini digital video cassette, which was eventually burned into a DVD, adding that same was handed over to the commission on February 14, 2017.
On his qualifications, the witness told the court that he was trained by a group from Netherlands in digital forensic and also obtained a training from Sweden in mobile phone forensic.
He also informed the court that he holds a certificate in Cinematography.
Asked whether the video recording depicted the circumstances under which it was done, and whether it showed the interaction of the accused with the commission, the witness said no.
Mr Akeem Lasisi, who was called as second witness in the trial-within-trial, agreed that he was not a part of the investigative team
On the question of how many statements of the accused were found, he said he did not count the statement of the accused in the case file.
He told the court that he had not viewed the recorded version of the endorsement exercise before it was played in court.
He also said he could not remember seeing any time duration in the video recording.
Asked whether he was aware that the EFCC first visited the accused in his NIMASA office, the witness said no.
On whether he is conversant with the video recording process of statements of the accused, he told the court that he was not in the know, as same was transmitted to the photographic unit.
After listening to the witness, the court further adjourned the case to March 3 for continuation and urged the defense to be prepared with its witnesses.
The EFCC accused Jauro and others of conspiring among themselves to defraud NIMASA of the alleged sum between January 2014 and September 2015.
Obi, who was also a one-time Executive Director of NIMASA, was charged alongside one Alu Dismas, a former personal assistant to another ex DG of NIMASA, Patrick Akpobolokemi, on an eight-count charge.
They had pleaded not guilty to the charges and were admitted to bail in the sum of N5 million each, when they were first arraigned, while Obi’s counsel, Wale Akoni (SAN), had also filed a no-case submission against the charges.
But trial judge, Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, on Tuesday, ruled that the accused persons have a case to answer and ordered them to enter their defense to the charges against them.
While delivering her ruling, Olatoregun held as follows:
“The central issue to consider having gone through the submissions on all sides is whether there is no legally admissible evidence linking the defendants with the commission of the offence of conversion of money belonging to NIMASA;
“Or that the evidence has been discredited by cross examination, or so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal or court can act on it as establishing the criminal guilt of the defendant.
“I cannot at this stage go into evaluation of the evidence before me or whether a particular document was wrongly admitted; the key question is whether those evidence can justifiably secure the conviction of the defendants
“I have only the evidence of the prosecution and so, can any reasonable tribunal or judge honestly say that from the evidence so far adduced by prosecution, either directly or circumstantially, that the defendants should not be called upon to make an explanation as regards their conducts? My answer is No!
“I must admit that there is a prima facie case made out against the defendants; this must be distinguished from the proof of the guilt of the defendants, a conclusion which I can only arrive at, at the end of the case, when the court has to find out whether the defendant is guilty or not.
“it is for now immaterial whether or not I believe the evidence of the prosecution; for now, the credibility of the witness does not arise
“I have juxtaposed the evidence provided by the prosecution in section 15 (1) and 18 (a) of the money laundering prohibition Act and the essential element of the offences, and I am satisfied that the defendants has a reason to be called upon to place their defense before the court.
“The respective submissions on no case by the defense, is hereby overruled, and I rely on the cases of Obasohan v Federal Government, as well as Amadi vs Federal Government.”
The court, subsequently, adjourned the suit to March 24 and 27 for the accused persons to open their defense.
The court added that the defense must be prepared to open and close its case on those dates, in order to make progress.