|
Listen to article
|
In response to the recent acquittal, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed an appeal against former Lagos State House of Assembly speaker, Adeyemi Ikuforiji, over allegations of money laundering.
Ikuforiji and his ex-personal assistant, Oyebode Atoyebi, were charged in March 2012 at the Federal High Court, Lagos, on a 54-count indictment over the alleged laundering of N338.8 million.
On June 24, 2014, after 12 years of a protracted trial, the court cleared Ikuforiji and Atoyebi of all charges, discharging and acquitting them.In delivering the judgment, Justice Mohammed Liman ruled that the EFCC had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the case against the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unhappy with the ruling, the EFCC filed a notice of appeal, contesting the decision handed down by the lower court.
The prosecutor, Ekene Ihenacho (SAN), argued that the trial court erred in law when it held that the charge under count one, did not present a potential legal issue.
Read also: Don’t Drag Us Into Bello Vs EFCC Matter – CJP To Politicians
He also argued that the trial judge erred in law by holding that the prosecutor’s case hinged on transactions that purportedly exceeded the thresholds of N500,000/N5 million for individuals and N2 million/10 million for corporate entities under the 2004 and 2011 Acts .
He contended that the lower court ignored the evidence led by the prosecutor which shows that the respondents made and accepted cash payments above the prescribed thresholds.
He further argued that oral and documentary evidence adduced during trial shows that the defendant made and accepted cash payments without passing through financial institutions contrary to the Money laundering Acts 2004 and 2011.
He submitted that the lower court did not obey the decision of the appellate court in the case of FRN Vs Ikuforiji (2016), Ikuforiji vs FRN (2018) and Atoyebi vs FRN (2018).
He averred that in those cases, the ingredients of the offences as charged, were laid down by the appellate courts.
The prosecution, said that the lower court failed to appreciate both the case of the appellant and ingredients of the offences under which the respondents failed trial.
