The Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee (EFCC), on Friday, filed an attraction in opposition to the judgment of Mohammed Idris who Thursday freed Warimapo-Owei Dudafa and Iwuejo Joseph of corruption fees.
Mr Dudafa, a cousin of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, and Mr Joseph have been charged with laundering N1.6 billion through the EFCC.
In his judgement, Mr Idris mentioned the EFCC did not do a radical investigation ahead of charging the defendants to court docket. The pass judgement on additionally dominated that the EFCC had failed to name subject matter and crucial witnesses that will have shed extra mild at the alleged rate.
In its attraction signed through EFCC suggest, Rotimi Oyedepo, the fee discussed 9 grounds for difficult the ruling.
It requested the appellate court docket to upturn the verdict of Mr Idris and to find the defendants responsible.
In keeping with the attraction, “The discovered trial Pass judgement on erred in legislation when in discharging and acquitting the Respondents on rely of conspiracy held at web page 100 of the judgement as follows “The first and second Defendants each of their respective defence mentioned that they didn’t know each and every different till the time in their arrests.”
The EFCC in its first floor of attraction claims this choice through the pass judgement on is opposite to “the main of legislation which states that an individual could also be convicted for conspiracy through his mere assent to and inspiring the design even though not anything can have been assigned or meant that the conspirators must participate within the crime as principals within the first or 2d stage. See ERIM VS STATE (1994)five NWLR (PT.346)522 .”
“The discovered trial Pass judgement on erred in legislation when his Lordship held at pages 107-108 of its judgment thus: “the prosecution has depended on Shows H8, H9,H11,H13 and H14 which can be the extrajudicial statements of the second Defendant and Shows 68, 69,611,612,613 and G14 which can be additionally further judicial statements of the first Defendant with out proffering additional proof to corroborate identical.”
“The discovered trial Pass judgement on erred in legislation when his Lordship in discharging and acquitting the Respondents on counts 2-Nine did not imagine, depend on and or ascribe any probative worth to the proof adduced through the Appellant appearing that the Respondents hid proceeds of an illegal act,” the EFCC mentioned.
READ ALSO: EFCC arraigns Atiku’s son-in-law on cash laundering fees
“The discovered trial Pass judgement on erred in legislation when after agreeing with the Appellant that the load of proving the predicate offence in fashionable occasions lie at the Defendants to turn the supply of the cash which has been mentioned to be disproportionate to his recognized supply of source of revenue, his Lordship became round in discharging and acquitting the Respondents on counts 2-Nine of the rate and held at web page 111 of the judgment as follows: “Then again, the 1“ Defendant has sufficiently proved the place the cash lodged within the more than a few account Showcase A, B, B1, 82, B3 and F have been proceeds of budget elevating held for the Anglican Church Otuoke of which the previous President Goodiuck Jonathan used to be conserving in agree with. The Prosecution made no try to rebut this statement made in defence. The prosecution refused to name the important witness that will have helped their case. The 1“ and a pair of″‘1 Defendant are hereby discharged and acquitted of counts 2-Nine of this rate because the Prosecution have did not end up some past affordable doubt”
The EFCC additionally mentioned the trial pass judgement on “erred in legislation when his Lordship held that the Appellant failed to name important witnesses.”
The fee argued that “the prosecution needn’t name any selection of witnesses or hordes of witnesses and even name all subject matter witness since in legislation a sole credible witness Is enough to end up a rate, now not requiring corroboration in legislation.”
It additionally mentioned the witnesses the trial pass judgement on thought to be subject matter and crucial have been at absolute best “participis criminls to the scheme of fraud contained within the rate, they don’t seem to be important and subject matter witnesses to the prosecution.”
It mentioned the prosecution used to be now not below any legal responsibility to “end up information already admitted through the Respondents.”
Additional faulting the judgment, the EFCC mentioned, “The discovered trial Pass judgement on erred in legislation when his Lordship in discharging and acquitting the first Respondent on counts 10 and 11 held at web page 115 of the judgment as follows: “now from counts 10 and 11 it kind of feels the prosecution expects this court docket to convict the first Defendant for the act of giving one Mr Festus iyoha the more than a few sums of cash to ship to Mr Murtala Bashir the Bureau de exchange operator. Right here, the query I’ve for the prosecution is: does the prosecution in fact be expecting the Court docket to consider that the act of giving cash through the first Defendant to Mr Festus lyoha who used to be a servant on the State Space Abuja to ship to Mr Murtala Bashir the Bureau de exchange Operator rely because the “cost” envisage through segment 1 of the Cash Laundering (Prohibition) Act,2011 as amended? Without a doubt, this isn’t the mischief that the act got down to curb.
“The mischief the Cash Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011 as amended got here to curb is to stop the making and acceptance of money transactions. The aim for which the cash used to be given isn’t an aspect of the offence of creating and accepting money cost.”
The EFCC accused the pass judgement on of failing to correctly review the proof ahead of acquitting the first defendant.
“The discovered trial Pass judgement on erred in legislation and occasioned miscarriage of justice when his Lordship in discharging and acquitting the first Respondent on counts 12-13, 14-15, 16-22, failed to correctly review the proof ahead of him.”
In its request of reliefs from the appellate court docket, the EFCC mentioned it was hoping the court docket would factor “an order permitting the attraction, an order convicting the respondents as charged, an order sentencing the respondents as prescribed through the Cash Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011 as amended and the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee Established order Act,2004, and every other order the Court docket would possibly deem are compatible to make within the circumstance below Phase 15 of the Court docket of Enchantment Act 0; C36, LFN.”
Messrs Dudafa and Iwuejo were on trial since 2016.