419: Court Denies 4 Bail
By Abimbola Akosile
An Ikeja High Court judge, Justice Morenike Obadina, has denied bail requests of four accused persons who are facing a 77-count charge of advance fee fraud a.k.a. 419 allegedly took place at the Federal Secretariat, Ikoyi, Lagos between May 5, 2003 and February 26, this year within Ikeja judicial division.
The accused persons, Alhaji Danladi Usman, Emmanuel Imohiosan, Adewale Balogun and Valentine Nwogu, were first arraigned by officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on September 13 for various offences, ranging from forgery of documents, conspiracy to obtain different individuals over a period of ten months in Lagos.
According to information, the accused persons were alleged to have conspired to obtain various goods including more than ten trucks of Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) or diesel containing 33,000 litres each, over 300 cartons of Bic Biro products and above 200 reams of photocopy papers, all running into several millions of naira.
Justice Obadina, who after submissions from opposing counsel, had adjourned ruling in the matter till September 22, refused to admit the foursome, led by Usman to bail on the grounds that the applicants had shown no special or exceptional circumstance to warrant their being released on bail.
In a 7-page ruling, presiding judge insisted that the offences in the charge against the accused persons, though not capital, were nevertheless serious with punishment of ten years imprisonment without option of fine.
"The allegation in the Proof of Evidence is that the 1st accused led the other accused persons to defraud several people while posing as the Deputy Director (Special Projects) of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), with his operational base at the Federal Secretariat, Ikoyi, Lagos. I am satisfied that the proof of evidence support the charge placed before this court," she ruled.
On issue of alleged ill-health of Usman (said to be suffering from diabetes), Justice Obadina held that the mere fact that an accused is sick is not enough to entitle him to bail. "There is also no evidence before the court to suggest that the prison authorities cannot manage the applicant's ailment. In view of the above, Exhibit JOA, the main document by which the applicant seeks to establish his ill-health is inadmissible. It is discountenanced," she added.
"After due consideration of all the facts before me, I hold that no special or exceptional circumstance has been shown by the applicant to warrant his being released on bail. I hold that the prosecution has discharged the burden of satisfying the court on why the applicant should not be admitted to bail pending the determination of this case. In the circumstance therefore, this application is refused. It is accordingly dismissed," she ruled.
|
