Latest News | News Break Nigeria A Federal High Court, Lagos has fixed Friday, July 11, 2014 to rule on the no-case application submitted by the Lagos State House of Assembly’s Speaker, Mr. Adeyemi Ikuforiji, standing trial over an allegation of money laundering. The court will also give a verdict on a similar application filed by Ikuforiji’s co-accused, Oyebode Atoyebi. Justice Ibrahim Buba will decide on whether or not Ikuforiji and Atoyebi should proceed into the dock to present their defence against the amended 56 counts of money laundering preferred against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The EFCC had alleged that Ikuforiji and Atoyebi laundered various sums cumulating into about N600m between April 2010 and July 2011. The money, which belonged to the Lagos State House of Assembly, were alleged to have been accessed by the duo without going through any financial institution. The EFCC said the offences contravened section 18(a) of the Money Laundering Act, 2004. At the resumed proceeding on Monday, Ikuforiji and Atoyebi through their counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Mr. Tunde Akinrinmisi, submitted a no-case application. This was their response to the prosecution, which closed its case on June 20, 2014 after presenting two witnesses. In the application filed on June 24, 2014, Olanipekun is contending that the Money Laundering Act, 2004 on which the EFCC made a case against Ikuforiji had been repealed and replaced by the Money Laundering Act, 2011. Olanipekun argued that the repealing of the Act had rendered the EFCC’s case against his client incompetent. He further argued that the House of Assembly’s records confirmed that all the monies in question were legally initiated by requests and were for specific official purposes which were duly approved. Olanipekun therefore asked the court to dismiss the charges and discharge his client. “We urge your lordship to put a stop to this circus show and the only way is to accede to our humble application,” he said, noting that the case had lingered for about four years. Akinrinmisi, who aligned with Olanipekun’s submission, said that Atoyebi too had no case to answer. He submitted that counts 1-49 in the charge against Atoyebi were brought under the repealed law and that the law was now incompetent. He emphasised that repealing amounted to total annulment of the law and not amendment. Akinrinmisi added that Atoyebi acted in the capacity of an employee of the House and under the instruction of his principal and that he was not a beneficiary of the money. Responding, the EFCC counsel, Chief Godwin Obla(SAN) maintained that the accused had a case to answer and that they should be ordered into the dock to present their defence. Obla argued that the Money Laundering Acts of 2004 and 2011 both criminalised acceptance or payment of cash above the stipulated thresholds, which was the substance of the allegation. He said, “Section 24(1) of the Money Laundering Act, 2011, clearly shows that that the objection to being charged under the Money Laundering Act,2004 has no basis whatsoever. We charged them for an offence known to the law at the time of the commission and that is preserved by the repealed law.” He added, “It is important to emphasize that section 1 of both 2004 and 2011 Money Laundering Acts create purely a state liability offence; it says nobody must make or accept cash above the stipulated threshold.” Obla added that the two Acts are exactly the same except that in the 2011 version, the stipulated threshold of cash payment or acceptance was reviewed. Obla further submitted that Atoyebi’s argument that he acted under the instructions of Ikuforiji to make the alleged transactions was an admission of the offence. He said, “My Lord, the second defendant admitted in his confessional statement, without objection, that he collected cash on 57 identified occasions. “My Lord, these 57 identified occasions agree with the cash register tendered in evidence where the second defendant was shown to have signed for those monies. “The first accused on his part confirmed that he received the cash and that all those monies were remitted to him and that at the material time the second accused acted on his instruction. Copyright PUNCH. All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH. Contact: editor@punchng
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:37:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015