The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has filed an appeal challenging the judgement by the Federal High Court, which acquitted Abiodun Agbele, an associate of the former Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose, and three others, in the N1.2bn money laundering charge brought against them by the commission.
In a notice, the commission faulted Justice Nnamdi Dimgba’s ruling, which stated that Agbele, Sylvan Mcnamara Limited, De Privateer Limited, and Spotless Investment Limited do not have a case to answer.
The defendants are standing trial on a 24-count amended charge bordering on money laundering to the tune of N1.219 billion.
The N1.2bn is said to be part of the sum of N4.7 billion belonging to the Federal Government and allegedly transferred from an account associated with the Office of the National Security Adviser, NSA, in the Central Bank of Nigeria.
However, in June, Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court Abuja upheld the no case submission application filed by the defendants.
In the notice of appeal, the EFCC, through its prosecuting counsel, Senior Advocate of Wahab Shittu, listed 17 grounds of appeal and sought two reliefs from the Court of Appeal.
First, it sought an order allowing the appeal set aside the ruling of Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and in its place holding that the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents have a case to answer on several counts of the amended charge.
The commission also sought an order directing the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents to enter into their defence before the trial court.
The EFCC expressed its dissatisfaction with the whole decision of the lower court June 21 ruling.
The commission said there is overwhelming evidence that N1.219 million from the account of the National Security Adviser, NSA, of Nigeria domiciled with CBN and 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 Fayose’s governorship election.
It said that the “trial court erred in law in using the ongoing proceedings before another court of competent jurisdiction to determine the merits of the proceedings before the trial court.”
CREDIT: DAILY POST