Alleged $6.23m fraud: EFCC opposes Emefiele’s no-case submission – The Witness Nigeria

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has urged the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja to dismiss a no-case submission filed by former Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, Governor, Godwin Emefiele, over an alleged $6.23 million fraud.

The commission argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution established a prima facie case requiring Emefiele to enter his defence.

Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, made the submission on Tuesday before Justice Hamza Mu’azu of the FCT High Court, Maitama, Abuja.

Emefiele is facing an amended 20-count charge bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence. The charges include the alleged withdrawal of $6.23 million and the conferment of corrupt advantage in the award of CBN contracts.

Oyedepo told the court that the purpose of a no-case submission was to determine whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require the defendant to enter his defence, not to establish his guilt or assess the credibility of witnesses at that stage.

He said ordering Emefiele to defend himself would not amount to compelling him to prove his innocence but would give him an opportunity to respond to the allegations arising from the prosecution’s evidence.

On the contract-related charges, the prosecutor identified the alleged offences’ essential elements as Emefiele’s status as a public officer, his alleged use of that position and the conferment of corrupt advantage on his relations or associates.

He told the court that exhibits bearing Emefiele’s approval signatures, alongside corporate records, linked him to companies allegedly associated with his wife and brother-in-law, including Architekon Nigeria Limited.

Oyedepo argued that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence of undue advantage involving a company allegedly associated with Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, described as an associate of the former CBN governor.

He further told the court that contracts valued between $6 million and $10 million allegedly bypassed the Major Contracts Tender Board, which he said was established under the Public Procurement Act, 2007, and chaired by a CBN deputy governor.

According to him, contracts exceeding $1 million were required to undergo the board’s review before recommendations were forwarded to the CBN governor for approval.

He said the board was also responsible for checking whether CBN staff members served as directors of companies bidding for contracts.

The prosecutor argued that bypassing the board prevented the required checks and scrutiny, suggesting that the procurement process had been deliberately circumvented.

Citing the testimony of a prosecution witness, identified as PW10 and described as a staff member of the procurement department, Oyedepo said at least three companies submitted bids for each contract.

He alleged, however, that officials were instructed to process the bids in favour of a company linked to Emefiele’s associates.

The prosecutor further alleged that the company was given information about the CBN’s internal prices and subsequently submitted bids quoting the exact amounts, denying other prospective bidders a fair opportunity.

“The ingredient of the offence is the unfairness of the process,” he told the court.

Oyedepo argued that the defence’s contention that the contracts had been executed, or that the prosecution had not directly traced the proceeds to Emefiele, did not defeat the case, insisting that the alleged unfairness in the award process was central to the charges.

He also told the court that the company had operated for years without securing contracts of the nature under investigation until Emefiele became CBN governor, after which it allegedly received all 45 contracts being examined.

The prosecutor further relied on evidence of transfers from Emefiele’s personal account to the company’s account, arguing that the transactions demonstrated his knowledge of the company and its directors.

He maintained that approving contracts was distinct from receiving recommendations from officials, arguing that Emefiele ought to have referred the contracts back to the board rather than approve them.

“The recommendation would never be an approval,” he said.

Oyedepo also urged the court to distinguish a judicial authority cited by the defence, arguing that the case concerned money laundering and proof of a predicate offence, while the present charges centred on the alleged conferment of corrupt advantage through an unfair procurement process.

On the alleged $6.23 million withdrawal, the prosecution told the court that the money was withdrawn from the CBN between February and around June, before Emefiele’s removal from office.

The funds were allegedly released on the strength of letters purportedly issued by former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha.

Oyedepo said evidence from witnesses, including Mustapha and a forensic analyst, indicated that the letters used to facilitate the release of the funds were forged.

He also relied on the testimony of PW15, who reportedly told the court that the transaction triggered an automatic system notification to Emefiele after the relevant account went into debit.

The prosecutor alleged that Emefiele took no action despite the notification, arguing that the evidence raised questions of criminal negligence and breach of trust, given his alleged control over the funds.

Oyedepo further cited testimony that the money was released to an individual on Emefiele’s instructions and that part of it was allegedly used to renovate one of the former CBN governor’s properties.

The remaining funds were reportedly recovered from the individual.

Responding to the defence’s argument that the prosecution’s case was speculative, Oyedepo said the evidence before the court supported inferences that could be drawn from legally admissible material.

“There is a difference between speculation and inferences drawn from legally admissible evidence,” he said.

He argued that where a forged document was used to facilitate a fraudulent transaction and the resulting benefit could be traced to a defendant, the circumstances could support an inference that the defendant forged the document or procured its forgery.

On the defence’s argument that the prosecution had not conducted a forensic examination of Emefiele’s signature, Oyedepo maintained that the absence of such an examination did not automatically defeat the forgery allegation.

He argued that the court could compare disputed signatures in accordance with the law.

The prosecutor also drew the court’s attention to a Supreme Court decision concerning approximately $2 million and certain properties, urging the judge to consider the decision in the context of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

However, defence counsel, Mathew Burkaa, SAN, urged the court to discharge Emefiele, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

“My lord, in the entirety of the charge, the prosecution failed to prove that he had conferred undue advantage on his wife and his associates,” Burkaa said.

The court said the date for ruling on the no-case submission would be communicated to the parties.