Ruling on the no case application filed by former Director General (DG) of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Raymond Omatseye will be delivered on January 26, 2015.
This is because a Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos presided over by Justice Rita Ofilli-Ajumogobia, today declared, after counsels in the matter had argued their briefs before the court.
Specifically, Omatseye is standing trial on an amended 27-count charge of alleged contract scam, made against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The former NIMASA boss who adopted his written brief through his lawyer, Olusina Sofola (SAN) prayed the judge to discharge and acquit the accused on all counts.
The senior lawyer posited that the charge against the accused stated that he approved the award of contract in the sum of over N4 million, and so, contravened the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2007.
The SAN further argued that the prosecution was duty bound to state what the valid monetary threshold was, at the time of the award of the contract by the accused.
The senior lawyer said, "Since the counts in the charge refers to monetary threshold and not only threshold, then the court must look at the definition of monetary threshold and not threshold.
"We also invite the court to look again at section 16 (2) of the Public Procurement Act, which provides that the council shall consider, approve and amend the monetary threshold for the application of the provisions of this act, by procuring entities.
"The definition of monetary threshold states that it is the value limit in Naira set by the Bureau, outside of which an approving authority may not award a procurement contract.
"We urge the court to uphold our arguments, that the offence for which the accused is charged, is the award of the contract, not the approval of the actual process.
"Even though the accused had admitted that his threshold was N5 million for works, and N2.5 million for goods, the prosecution is duty bound to establish what the valid threshold was at the time of the award of the contract."
He therefore, submitted that the prosecution was duty bound to adduce evidence in support of the fact sought to be established, adding that the accused cannot be called upon to answer to an inconclusive prosecution.
The defence counsel then urged the court to sustain his application for a no case submission, and acquit and discharge the accused.
But in responding, EFCC lawyer, Chief Godwin Obla (SAN) insisted that the accused had made submissions and conjectures not supported by the evidence on record before the court.
Obla said it was too late in the day for the accused to raise an objection to the charge, since he never raised same when it was read to him.
According to the EFCC lawyer, "Assuming but not conceding that there is an error in the counts as contended, we submit that the alleged error if any, cannot render the counts invalid having regards to sections 166 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
"The accused who is a very well educated legal practitioner and represented by a team of formidable lawyers, never raised any objection when the charge was read to him.
"Upon being arraigned before this court, the accused pleaded not guilty to all counts; this presupposes that he understood the charge and was not mislead."
The anti-graft agency's lawyer also posited that in the light of the definition of the word threshold by the Act, it was preposterous for the accused to submit that the offence created under section 16 (1) relates to the award of contract.
According to the SAN, "With profound respect to the accused, inserting the word "awarded" in the charge as he proposed, will amount to charging him with an offence not known to law.
"The testimonies of PW 1, 2, and 3 are all in agreement as to the stipulated threshold, and even the accused admitted this; so, facts that are admitted needs no further proof.
"I think the most important question is whether the accused has been linked to the charge, and I say yes, he has been sufficiently linked to the charge."
Obla then prayed the court to uphold his submissions, and call on the accused to open his defence.
According to the charge, Omatseye was alleged to have been involved in contract splitting and bid rigging estimated at over N1.5 billion.
The alleged offence according to the EFCC contravenes sections 58(4) (d) of the Public Procurement Act 2007.
It also contravenes the provisions of sections 14(a) of the money laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment