Court dismisses
suit against biggest fraud suspects
From
Emmanuel Onwubiko, Abuja
C ITING lack of territorial
jurisdiction among others, an Abuja High Court yesterday
struck out the suit against three Nigerian businessmen for
allegedly defrauding a Brazilian bank to the tune of N36.5
billion.
The fraud which had been described as the "single biggest
advanced fee fraud (419) in the world" was allegedly
perpetrated by a former Union Bank Director, Chief Emmanuel
Nwude, Mrs. Amaka Anajemba and Chief Nzeribe Okoli.
The prosecution, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) had also arraigned alongside the suspects two lawyers,
Emmanuel Ofolue and Obum Osakwe.
The lawyers were alleged to have offered gratification to
Alhaji Nuhu Ribadu, EFCC chairman, to facilitate the release
of Nwude and Anajemba.
Delivering ruling, the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital
Territory (FCT) Justice Lawal Hassan Gummi held that the court
has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
He said: "There were 14 banks involved in the transfers of
various sums of money mostly in United States (US) dollars
from offshore banks to Nigeria, the sums involved were
received in Lagos."
He added: "The obtaining of the various sums mentioned in
the instruments of transfers as seen in the proof of evidence
could therefore not be said to have occurred here in Abuja. In
fact there were 99 deals or transfers beginning from February
4, 1995 running through to January 20, 1998 and not a single
one of such deals happened here in Abuja".
The judge further ruled: "I cannot accept the submission to
the effect that because the words "at Abuja occur on all the
86 counts that alone will clothe this court with jurisdiction
to hear and determine the matter. It is obvious from all the
statements recorded, copies of which we see in the proof of
evidence, that those statements were recorded at the office of
the EFCC in Lagos.
Gummi while declining jurisdiction to hear the matter
against the accused, said Lagos High Court will be the most
appropriate venue and not Abuja High Court.
The EFCC, pursuant to an application brought under section
18 (B) of the criminal procedure code, obtained the leave of
the Abuja High Court on February 5, 2004 to prefer 86 count
charges of defrauding a Brazilian bank against the three
Nigerians including their companies.
But the defendants through their lawyers Dr. Alex Izinyon
(SAN), Chief Chris Uche (SAN) and Clement Akpamgbo (SAN)
objected to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.
In dismissing the suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction
and wiping out certain count charges against the accused, the
judge ruled that:
"The penal code is not a law or an Act specifically crafted
towards the eradication of a single class of offence or
aberrant behaviour such as those other laws enumerated in
subsections 2 of section 6 of the EFCC Act 2002"
"From all these, it is clear that the penal code Act Cap
532 LFN 1990 applicable to Abuja could not have been intended
by the law maker to fall into or belong to the same class as
the money laundering Act, the Advanced Fee Fraud, etc, Act the
Failed Banks Tribunal Act, the Banks and Other Financial
Institutions Act 1991 and the Miscellaneous Offence Act. The
penal code is not a law relating to economic and financial
crimes," he added.
The judge added further: "I accept the submission by
Izinyon on behalf of the first accused/applicant that counts
43-86 of the charge against the accused having been anchored
on sections 97, 364 and 366 of the penal code may not be
enforceable by the EFCC.
"In the premises and for all the reasons given, I am of the
view that grounds (1) and (2) of the preliminary objection by
1st defendants ground is that the charges have not been
brought by due process of law while ground 11 is that the
charge against the accused constitute an abuse of court
process have failed and are hereby discountenanced.
"I am however of the further view that the objection based
on ground (3) that is that the facts deposed to in this
affidavit in support are all within my personal knowledge
except where otherwise stated is well taken and accordingly
counts 43-86 of charge CR/15/2004 are hereby struck out."
As at yesterday, the accused were still being detained by
the EFCC and sources told The Guardian that new charges
will soon be slammed on them in another court with
jurisdiction.`
