Nigeria Content Online

Justice Ramat
Mohammed of the Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos, has fixed March
30, 2010 to deliver ruling over the application by the former governor
of Oyo State, Rashidi Ladoja, asking the court to quash the amended
charges levied against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC).

Allegations against defendants

Mr. Ladoja,
alongside Waheed Akanbi, his former aide, are in court on account of
allegations levied by the prosecution stating that the defendants
conspired to convert properties and resources derived from an illegal
act, with the aim of concealing the illicit origin of the properties
and resources. The defendants were accused of committing fraud in the
sum of N1, 932, 940, 32. 48. They were alleged to have used as conduit
pipe a company, Bistrumm Investment, to siphon the sum of N77. 8
million for the purpose of purchasing a building for him, while Mr.
Ladoja was also alleged to have fraudulently transferred a sum of
600,000 pounds to one Bimpe Ladoja, amongst other allegations.

Counsel adopt written addresses

At the resumed
hearing, the counsel in the matter, Wole Olanipekun for Mr. Ladoja, and
Vitalis Amaotu for the commission, adopted their written address, on
the application by Mr. Ladoja.

In the application
filed on behalf of Mr. Ladoja by his counsel, Wole Olanipekun, the
applicant urged the court to dismiss the charges levied against him on
the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the
counts as framed.

Mr. Olanipekun
argued that the allegations against the applicant are vague and do not
link him with the commission of any crime to warrant his arraignment
under any written law. He also contended that the proof-of-evidence
placed before the court by the prosecution has no connection with the
charge and that it does not disclosed any prima facie case against the
applicant.

Star witness is a tainted witness

Speaking on the
issue of proof-of-evidence, Mr. Olanipekun said it is wrong for the
prosecution to use the same proof-of-evidence for both the old and
amended charge. He also noted that the evidence of the star witness
(Adewale Atanda) in the old charge was given while he was an accused
person, noting that it is wrong for the prosecution to use Mr. Atanda
as a witness against Mr. Ladoja.

Previously, Mr.
Atanda was charged along with the defendants in the initial charges
preferred against the defendants. The commission had on March 25, 2009,
re-arraigned Mr. Ladoja alongside Mr. Akanbi, based on an amended
charge, as opposed to the initial charge wherein Mr. Atanda, a the
former commissioner of finance with Oyo State, was charged along with
the duo.

The counsel further
noted that Section 27(3) of the evidence act does not permit the court
to admit such evidence, from a person classified as a tainted witness.
“Adewale Atanda remains an accused person and a tainted witness in as
much as the EFCC is relying on his statement”, he said.

Mr. Olanipekun
further observed that the prosecution has failed to appreciate Section
14(1) of the money laundering act upon which his client was charged to
court. He said the section only talked about offences relating to
narcotic drugs and other substances.

He also noted that
if the amended charge has truly supplanted the original charge, then,
there is no proof of evidence before the court.

EFCC responds

In his response,
EFCC’s counsel, Vitalis Amaotu, urged the court to dismiss the
application of the applicant. He stated that a look at the applicant’s
reply to the prosecution’s submission shows that the applicant
re-argued his case.

He noted that the
offence alleged to have been committed by the 1st defendant amounted to
an offence at the time the offence was committed and that the charges
against him was brought under an existing law.

Mr. Amaotu maintained that the amended charge has supplanted the old
charge. According to him, the star witness (Mr. Atanda) is not an
accused before the court since the prosecution has withdrawn the charge
against him.