No record of Ogun missing money under me – Daniel – TheNigerialawyer

A former governor of Ogun State, Gbenga Daniel, says his
eight-year-old trial for alleged N200m fraud is nothing but
persecution by his successor, Ibikunle Amosun.

He said despite charging him with theft, the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission had not been able to show the court
that any money was missing from the treasury of Ogun State
throughout his time as governor.

Describing his trial as a charade, Daniel urged the world to
note that the charge, which began with an alleged N87bn fraud, had
been amended on three different occasions with the amounts claimed
to have been stolen being reduced from N87bn to N52bn, to N9bn and
N200m.

“All these were done within the prosecution windows even as
Otunba Daniel has not entered his own defence.

“It should also be noted that the EFCC spent almost eight years
in calling their various witnesses and none of them gave evidence
of any missing money and/or funds belonging to the Ogun State
Government. As a matter of fact, all the witnesses agreed under
cross-examination that no fund belonging to the state government
was missing.

“There has been no record that any money was lost in Ogun State
treasury while Otunba Daniel was Governor of Ogun State; hence
there was no theft of any money belonging to Ogun State. Even when
the chief ‘persecutor’ himself held sway as the Governor on Ogun
State he could not tender any record or documents of any money lost
or missing from the Ogun State coffers,” Daniel’s Press Officer,
Ayo Giwa, said in a statement on Sunday in response to a Sunday
PUNCH publication, captioned, “10 govs who may suffer Kalu’s
fate.”

He said there was a need to emphasise that “most of the
subsisting charges border on administrative procedures and
executive discretion.”

He said, “We therefore wondered where these figures about N200m
stolen funds come from.

“It therefore puts logic to test that it is only Otunba Gbenga
Daniel that is standing trial on behalf of an administration that
ruled the state for eight years; suggesting there was no
accomplice, no clerk, no collaborators – just one man, presumed to
be signing vouchers, cheques and paying himself if indeed and truly
there were any infraction on the state finance.”

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!