In a ruling dated February 23, 2024, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a motion on notice submitted by Ali Bello and Dauda Suleiman. This motion sought to dismiss the 17-count amended charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), contending that it lacked merit and validity.
Justice Omotosho affirmed the validity of the 17-count amended charges filed on February 5, 2024, asserting that the prosecution maintains the right to amend charges before the conclusion of the trial.
The defense, represented by Nureini Jimoh, filed a motion on February 22, 2024, objecting to the admission of the amended charges, alleging an abuse of court processes. Additionally, they questioned the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja to preside over the matter, advocating for its transfer to Kogi State. Jimoh argued that the 17-count amended charge was legally flawed, citing Section 216 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Jimoh stated, “The EFCC lacks the authority to investigate the revenue of the Kogi State Government, as it is not constitutionally empowered to usurp the decision-making powers of the Kogi State House of Assembly. Based on the resolution of the Kogi State Assembly, which found no evidence of fraud in the Kogi State Account, EFCC’s allegations of fraud should be dismissed.”
Responding to these claims, Prosecution Counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, presented a counter-affidavit refuting the defense’s allegations and urging the court to disregard their application. Oyedepo emphasized that the alleged offenses were committed within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja, as all three witnesses in the case are residents of the city. He also highlighted security concerns associated with conducting the trial in Kogi State.
Oyedepo stated, “We oppose the application with a counter-affidavit and implore the court to dismiss it. The offenses were committed in Abuja, and the funds in question, purportedly laundered, were used to acquire properties and engage in foreign exchange transactions in Wuse Zone 4, Abuja. I rely on Section 20 of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011.”
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho rejected the defense’s application, asserting that since the prosecution had not concluded its case, it was premature to argue against the EFCC’s right to amend charges. He affirmed the EFCC’s authority under its Establishment Act to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption and money laundering.
“The prosecution of a money laundering charge falls within the purview of the EFCC,” Justice Omotosho stated. “I affirm that this criminal trial is properly before this court. The second amended charge filed on February 5, 2024, is deemed valid and competent. I hereby direct the defendants to enter their pleas on the amended charge, and I overrule the objection raised by the defense.”
Justice Omotosho pledged an expeditious hearing of the case and acknowledged that security concerns could justify conducting a criminal trial outside of the jurisdiction. Consequently, he adjourned the proceedings to March 14, 15, and 21 for further hearing.
