Court Rejects EFCC’s Request To Amend Charge In Ex-NNPC GMD, Yakubu’s Trial

A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected an application by the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to amend its charge
in the $9.8million, £74,000 fraud trial of an ex-Group Managing
Director (GMD) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
(NNPC), Andrew Yakubu.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling on Thursday, held that
granting the application by the EFCC would amount to varying a
subsisting judgment given by the Court of Appeal, Abuja on April
24, 2020 where it, among others, ordered Yakubu to enter defence in
relation to counts three and four of the six counts originally
contained in the charge on which he was arraigned.

Justice Mohammed was emphatic that allowing the prosecution (the
EFCC) to amend the charge was tantamount to disobeying the
subsisting order made by the Court of Appeal in its judgment of
April 24, 2020.

The EFCC claimed that its operatives, acting on a tip-off,
raided Yakubu’s house located on Chikun Road, Sabon Tasha area of
Kaduna South Local Government Area of Kaduna State on February 3,
2017 and recovered the $9,772,800 and £74,000 cash kept in a fire
proof safe.

It arraigned Yakubu on March 16, 2017, on a six-count charge
relating to money laundering offences.

He was among others, accused of failing to make full disclosure
of assets, receiving cash without going through a financial
institution, which borders on money laundering and intent to avoid
a lawful transaction under law, transported at various times to
Kaduna, the aggregate sum of $9,772,800 and £74,000.

The prosecution closed its case on October 17, 2018 after
calling seven witnesses.

The seventh prosecution witness, an operative of the EFCC,
Suleiman Mohammed spoke about how his team recovered the $9,772,000
and £74,000 cash in Yabubu’s house in Kaduna, which was later
deposited in CBN in Kano.

At the closure of the prosecution’s case, Yakubu made a no-case
submission, which Justice Mohammed, in a ruling on May 16, 2019,
partially upheld by striking out two of the six counts contained in
the charge and ordered Yakubu to enter defence in relation to the
remaining four counts.

The judge was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove
counts five and six of the charge, which related to allegation of
unlawful transportation of the money.

“Even though I am tempted to discharge the defendant on counts
one to four, I am however constrained to ask the defendant to
explain how he came about the monies recovered from his house.

“Fortified with my position, the defendant is hereby ordered to
enter his defence in respect of counts one to four,” Justice
Mohammed said in the May 16, 2019 ruling.

Dissatisfied, Yakubu challenged the decision at the Court of
Appeal, Abuja, which, in a ruling on April 24, 2020, upheld Justice
Mohammed’s ruling and proceeded to strike out two more counts – one
and two – in the charge.

The Court of Appeal then ordered Yakubu to enter his defence in
respect of the remaining two counts – three and four.

Proceedings later resumed at the Federal High Court, with the
defendant commencing his defence as ordered by the Court of
Appeal.

But, on March 10 this year, the prosecution applied for leave to
amend its charge, arguing among others, that the law allows the
prosecution to amend charge at any stage of the proceedings before
judgement.

The defence countered, arguing that the Court of Appeal, in its
judgment of April 24, 2020, made an order to guide further
proceedings in the trial.

It noted that the Court of Appeal ordered that the defendant was
only to enter defence in relation to counts three and four in
respect of which a prima facie case was established.

The defence urged the court to refuse the prosecution’s
application for amendment and allow the defendant to continue with
his defence, a prayer Justice Mohammed granted in his ruling on
Thursday.

When the judge ended the ruling on Thursday, the defence
indicated its intention to proceed with its case, but the court
elected to adjourn till June 30 following plea by the prosecution
for an adjournment on the grounds that the lead prosecuting lawyer
was not immediately available.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected an application by the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to amend its charge
in the $9.8million, £74,000 fraud trial of an ex-Group Managing
Director (GMD) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
(NNPC), Andrew Yakubu.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling on Thursday, held that
granting the application by the EFCC would amount to varying a
subsisting judgment given by the Court of Appeal, Abuja on April
24, 2020 where it, among others, ordered Yakubu to enter defence in
relation to counts three and four of the six counts originally
contained in the charge on which he was arraigned.

Justice Mohammed was emphatic that allowing the prosecution (the
EFCC) to amend the charge was tantamount to disobeying the
subsisting order made by the Court of Appeal in its judgment of
April 24, 2020.

The EFCC claimed that its operatives, acting on a tip-off,
raided Yakubu’s house located on Chikun Road, Sabon Tasha area of
Kaduna South Local Government Area of Kaduna State on February 3,
2017 and recovered the $9,772,800 and £74,000 cash kept in a fire
proof safe.

It arraigned Yakubu on March 16, 2017, on a six-count charge
relating to money laundering offences.

He was among others, accused of failing to make full disclosure
of assets, receiving cash without going through a financial
institution, which borders on money laundering and intent to avoid
a lawful transaction under law, transported at various times to
Kaduna, the aggregate sum of $9,772,800 and £74,000.

The prosecution closed its case on October 17, 2018 after
calling seven witnesses.

The seventh prosecution witness, an operative of the EFCC,
Suleiman Mohammed spoke about how his team recovered the $9,772,000
and £74,000 cash in Yabubu’s house in Kaduna, which was later
deposited in CBN in Kano.

At the closure of the prosecution’s case, Yakubu made a no-case
submission, which Justice Mohammed, in a ruling on May 16, 2019,
partially upheld by striking out two of the six counts contained in
the charge and ordered Yakubu to enter defence in relation to the
remaining four counts.

The judge was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove
counts five and six of the charge, which related to allegation of
unlawful transportation of the money.

“Even though I am tempted to discharge the defendant on counts
one to four, I am however constrained to ask the defendant to
explain how he came about the monies recovered from his house.

“Fortified with my position, the defendant is hereby ordered to
enter his defence in respect of counts one to four,” Justice
Mohammed said in the May 16, 2019 ruling.

Dissatisfied, Yakubu challenged the decision at the Court of
Appeal, Abuja, which, in a ruling on April 24, 2020, upheld Justice
Mohammed’s ruling and proceeded to strike out two more counts – one
and two – in the charge.

The Court of Appeal then ordered Yakubu to enter his defence in
respect of the remaining two counts – three and four.

Proceedings later resumed at the Federal High Court, with the
defendant commencing his defence as ordered by the Court of
Appeal.

But, on March 10 this year, the prosecution applied for leave to
amend its charge, arguing among others, that the law allows the
prosecution to amend charge at any stage of the proceedings before
judgement.

The defence countered, arguing that the Court of Appeal, in its
judgment of April 24, 2020, made an order to guide further
proceedings in the trial.

It noted that the Court of Appeal ordered that the defendant was
only to enter defence in relation to counts three and four in
respect of which a prima facie case was established.

The defence urged the court to refuse the prosecution’s
application for amendment and allow the defendant to continue with
his defence, a prayer Justice Mohammed granted in his ruling on
Thursday.

When the judge ended the ruling on Thursday, the defence
indicated its intention to proceed with its case, but the court
elected to adjourn till June 30 following plea by the prosecution
for an adjournment on the grounds that the lead prosecuting lawyer
was not immediately available.