How Court Discharged Fayose’s Ally, Agbele, Others Despite Substantive Evidence In N1.2Billion Money Laundering Case –Concerned Whistleblowers

A group which identified itself as Concerned Whistleblowers has issued a critique of how a Federal High Court of Nigeria in Abuja discharged Abiodun Agbele, an ally of a former Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, and three others despite multiple evidence proving their involvement in the alleged N1.2 billion money laundering case.

Agbele together with Sylvan Mcnamara Ltd, De Privateer Limited and Spotless Investment Limited were accused of laundering N1,219,000,000.00 (One Billion, Two Hundred and Nineteen Million Naira) received from the account of the National Security Adviser office to fund the election of Fayose in 2014.

In a judgement recently delivered by Honourable Justice (Dr.) Nnamdi O. Dimgba, the defendants were discharged as the court held that they had no case to answer.

However, Concerned Whistleblowers complained in its critique of the judgment made available to SaharaReporters that the court decision in the case was unfair to the prosecution despite calling 18 witnesses and submitting about 45 documents to show the defendants’ guilt.

It read in part: “The subject ruling of the Federal High Court of Nigeria coram Honourable Justice (Dr.) Nnamdi O. Dimgba on No Case Submission was delivered on the 21st day of June, 2024 and comprised in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/154/2016.

“The purpose of this critique is to examine the ruling and evaluate whether the decision was fair and justified. No Case Submission is a legal motion made by the defence in which it is argued that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain its case. The law is to the effect that where the prosecution has not established a prima facie case against the accused person, the accused may enter a no case submission at the close of the prosecution’s case. See the case of Dele Fagoriola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) LPELR–20896 (SC) wherein the court inter alia held that “This means that there is no evidence on which the Court would convict even if the court believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

“One crucial aspect in evaluating a No Case Submission (NCS) application is considering who bears the burden of proof.

“The prosecution has the initial burden to present sufficient evidence in proof of its case. However, if they manage to meet this threshold, then it shifts to the defense to effectively counteract the allegation against it. In discharging the burden in the instant case, the prosecution called 18 witnesses, PW to 18 and tendered 45 (forty-five documentary evidence admitted and marked as Exhibit AA1-AA44.

“It was established beyond denial by the prosecution that the sum of N1,219,000,000.00 (One Billion, Two Hundred and Nineteen Million Naira) was withdrawn from the account of the National Security Adviser (NSA) domiciled with the CBN. It was also established that the said sum made its way to corporate and private accounts belonging to the Defendants. We will embark on a search of what money laundering means anon.”

Regarding the provisions of Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 under which the foregoing charges were preferred, the group said it was “minded to examine what the concept means in layman’s language”.

It said, “The word ‘launder’ simply means to wash dirty cloths or linen and, often, iron them as well. Money laundering therefore means making dirty money look clean.

“It is hiding the source of illegal money. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, page 1097, Money Laundering is ‘The act of transferring illegally obtained money through legitimate people or accounts so that its original source cannot be traced.’ Imagine you stole some money, and you want to use it to buy a house or a car without anyone knowing it is stolen.

“To do that, you might use a series of complex financial transactions to disguise where the money came from, making it hard for anyone to trace it back to the original crime. That is money laundering.”

The group said, “There is overwhelming evidence from the 45 documentary documents tendered before the trial court that the sum of N1,219,000,000.00 from the account of the National Security Adviser of Nigeria domiciled with CBN earmarked for security purposes and paid into the account of the 2nd Respondent by the office of the NSA was unlawfully diverted by the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents to fund the Governorship Election of former Governor Ayo Fayose in Ekiti State.

“The court relied heavily in the testimony of PW13 senator Musiliu Obanikoro in holding that the said testimony rather exculpated the Defendants regarding the origin of funds.

“PW13 (Obanikoro) in deed peripherally testified that money was contributed for the Governorship Election of former Governor Ayo Fayose in Ekiti State but did not say that same was deposited in the account of the NSA. But assuming he even said so, the question would be whether money contributed for Ayo Fayose of PDP could rightly be deposited or warehoused in the account of the NSA domiciled with the CBN.

“The operating words in section 1 of the Money Laundering Act are the making or accepting of cash above the specified amount (threshold): N5,000,000.00 or its equivalent, in the case of an individual; or N10,000,000.00 or its equivalent in the case of a body corporate. It was established that the 1st defendant (Abiodun Agbele) knew that the sum of N1,219,000,000.00 (One Billion, Two Hundred and Nineteen Million Naira) was being flown by aircraft from Lagos to Akure for his collection when he approached Pw1, Pw2 and Pw3 (prosecution witnesses) to consummate the transaction.

“He also knew that the funds ought to go through financial institution when he mobilized Pw1, Pw2, and Pw3 to the airport to receive the huge cash.  Abiodun Agbele, having participated in accepting the cash and causing same to be retained in the accounts of 3r and 4th defendants (corporate bodies) and that of Ayodele Fayose in contravention of Section 1 of the Money Laundering Act was adjudged by the court to have no case at all to answer.

“Curiously, in spite of the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Honourable Court was rather of the view that it was it was senator Obanikoro and Mr. Ayo Fayose that should have been charged. Despite agreeing that the sum N1,219,000,000.00 (One Billion, Two Hundred and Nineteen Million Naira) actually withdrawn from the account of the NSA domiciled with the CBN and eventually paid into the accounts of the Defendants the court opined that someone from the office of the NSA should have been called to state the origin of the money.

“Though it was overwhelmingly established that huge sums of the cash withdrawn from the national purse were eventually deployed for the purchase of personal properties the court still held that the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants had no case to answer.”

“It is with the greatest humility to the Honourable Trial Court that the writer concludes that the ruling in this is perverse. The trial court in deed missed an opportunity to do justice in the light of the need to curb corruption in Nigeria,” the group added.