Alleged money laundering: Court fails to rule on Ikuforiji's no case submission

Justice Ibrahim Buba of a Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, South-West Nigeria, today failed to deliver ruling on the no case submission instituted by Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Adeyemi Ikuforiji on the reason that the numerous businesses of the court did not allow him conclude the writing of the said ruling.

The judge also declared that the court cannot be put under pressure by counsels in the matter to have the ruling delivered today (Friday) because according to Justice Buba, the court cannot kill itself.

While commending all parties in the matter for their efforts towards ensuring that justice is done, the court adjourned till September 26, 2014 to deliver the said ruling.

It would be recalled that the Speaker alongside his aide, Oyebode Atoyebi are facing trial on an amended 56 count charge that touches on alleged money made against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

In adopting the Speaker's submission, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) while addressing the court insisted that the prosecution has not been able to establish any prima-facie case against Ikuforiji to bring about him entering the dock to open his defence.

The SAN who cited numerous authorities raised many issues for determination which included constitutional, jurisdictional and sovereignty of the office of the speaker.

Olanipekun added that the Speaker's office was constitutionally created, and so, by parity of reasoning, the Speaker was sovereign as presently constituted. The senior lawyer explained that the charge against Ikuforiji largely dwelt on transacting with funds above the threshold stipulated by the Money Laundering Act (MLA), and not necessarily whether they were in cash or not.

Olanipekun stated further that the Speaker had not been involved in any transaction within the contemplation of the Act, since according to the SAN, all funds collected on behalf of the Speaker, were based on requisition notes which were approved and handed over to banks, before cash was received.

The SAN insisted that if the funds collected on behalf of the Assembly were actually drawn from a financial institution, then the issue of exceeding threshold no longer existed as that would amount to a circus.

Olanipekun added that the National Assembly would not have contemplated by the enactment of the Act, that the Speaker who had only obtained funds officially for the benefit of the Assembly, would now stand trial for performing his official duties.

The senior lawyer equally explained that the 2004 Act, under which the accused was charged, had since been repealed by a subsequent legislation of 2011, with an addition that the effect of repealing a statute was to discountenance it as though is never existed.

The SAN posited that the failure of the prosecution to demonstrate elements of conspiracy between the accused persons, also shows the futility of the proceedings before the court.

He therefore prayed the court to determine whether it was possible within the tenure of the MLA, for the accused to be charged for dealing with funds approved for official reasons. Olanipekun also stated that even the evidence of PW 2, attested to the fact that all the funds obtained for the benefit of members of the Assembly, were legally approved.

According to Olanipekun, "I submit that this proceeding amounts to a mere witch-hunting of the accused, and criminal proceedings should not be used for such purposes. I therefore, urge this honourable court to put a halt to the prosecution of the accused; he has been attending court since 2011; and I think enough is enough."

On his part, lawyer to Ikuforiji's aide, Tunde Akinrimisi, while aligning himself with the argument of Olanipekun maintained that the evidence of PW1 was inconclusive and based on a mere hearsay, insisting that the judge cannot act on such unfounded allegations.

But in responding, counsel to the EFCC, Chief Godwin Obla (SAN) prayed the court to disregard the arguments of the defense lawyers and order the Speaker and his aide to open their defence.

The anti-graft agency's lawyer also told Justice Buba that the confessional statement of the accused before the EFCC, was enough evidence on their admission of having transacted with cash of the Assembly, about 57 times.

Obla stressed that the provisions of the MLA clearly made it an offence for any individual or institution, to transact with funds above the stipulated threshold, without going through a financial institution.

Obla who cited the provisions of the Halsbury Laws of England, insisted that the accused was not covered by any immunity, adding that the self accounting Laws of Lagos State, did not preclude officers from complying with the MLA.

The SAN stated that although the 2004 statute had been repealed, the 2011 enactment provided that such repeal shall not affect anything done or purported to be done pursuant to that Act. Obla also told the judge that in establishing the element of conspiracy, it was not necessary for the accused to be seen coming out from the same location "like those who murdered julius ceaser."

The EFCC lawyer therefore prayed the court to discountenance the application of the defense and order the accused to open their defence. It would be recalled that the accused were re-arraigned before Justice Buba, on June 24, 2013, consequent upon the retirement of Justice Okechukwu Okeke, the former trial judge.

They had however pleaded not guilty to all counts, while justice Buba had granted them bail in the sum of N1 billion each with two surety each in the sum of N500 million.

In the charge, the accused were alleged to have committed the offence between April 2010 and July 2011. According to the charge, the Speaker alongside his aide were alleged to have committed an illegal act of accepting cash payments of over N273 million from the LAHA, without going through a financial institution.

The Speaker was also alleged to have used his position to misappropriate about N500 million of the LAHA’s funds. The alleged offence according to the EFCC offends Section 18(a) of the Money Laundering (prohibition) Act 2011.