EFCC told the Court of Appeal that the trial court erred in law and failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented during the trial.
KThe Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Court of Appeal in Lagos to overturn a Federal High Court judgement that cleared a former Executive Director of Projects at the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Tuoyo Omatsuli, and others of alleged N3.6 billion money laundering.
On Thursday, PREMIUM TIMES obtained a notice of appeal dated 8 April, where the anti-graft agency urged the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s judgement, which discharged and acquitted Mr Omatsuli, Francis Momoh, Don Parker Properties Limited, and Building Associates Limited.
The trial judge, Daniel Osiagor, had ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt against the defendants.
“The prosecution failed to establish the offence of proceeds of unlawful activity and money laundering against the 1st and 2nd defendants,” the judge held.
The lower court noted that from all the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, the defendants were not culpable in the 46-count brought against them.
The court stressed that the EFCC premised its investigation on what it described as credible intelligence, however, it failed to substantiate it.
“The prosecution premised its investigation on credible intelligence.
But the EFCC, in its appeal led by the prosecution lawyer Ekene Iheanacho, who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that the court erred in law and failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented during the trial.
The commission contended that the trial judge disregarded earlier rulings of the Court of Appeal delivered at the no-case submission stage of the trial.
According to the EFCC, the appellate court had already held that a prima facie case existed against the defendants, requiring them to open their defence.
It argued that although, those findings were binding on the trial court, Mr Osiagor departed from them without justification, reaching conclusions that conflicted with the earlier decisions.
According to EFCC’s court filings, at the centre of the case is a payment of N3.645 billion allegedly made by a contractor, identified as PW4, to accounts linked to the defendants.
The EFCC maintained that the money was paid under the guise of “appreciation” to members of the NDDC board and was routed through intermediaries and corporate entities.
According to the commission, the funds were later used to acquire properties in Lagos through proxies and company accounts, rather than for any legitimate purpose connected to Niger Delta development.
It argued that the payments amounted to unlawful gratification and that public officials are required by law to account for such benefits, a burden it said the defendants failed to discharge.
The EFCC said evidence presented during the trial showed that Mr Omatsuli received funds through a company account and used a significant portion to acquire properties in the name of his private firm.
It added that the properties have already been forfeited to the government through non-conviction-based proceedings, a decision it said was upheld by the Court of Appeal in a separate civil case.
The commission also argued that key witness testimonies, supported by documentary evidence, were not materially contradicted and should not have been dismissed by the trial court.
EFCC stated that Mr Osiagor had relied on statements made by prosecution witnesses during cross-examination to conclude that the EFCC’s case was weakened.
However, the commission argued that the trial judge focused on isolated answers rather than the totality of the evidence.
It maintained that the testimonies, when properly considered, supported its case and did not undermine the core allegation of unlawful financial transactions.
The EFCC further argued that the trial court failed to properly apply relevant anti-corruption laws and constitutional provisions governing the conduct of public officers.
It cited provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act and the Code of Conduct framework, which prohibit public officials from receiving benefits connected to their official duties.
According to the commission, the court did not give effect to the legal presumption that such benefits are unlawful unless satisfactorily explained.
On the issue of intent, the EFCC said the trial court adopted an unduly narrow approach by requiring direct proof of knowledge.
It argued that, under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, intent can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including patterns of financial transactions, the use of third-party accounts, and the absence of legitimate business relationships.
The commission also alleged that the defendants took steps to conceal the origin of the funds, including converting parts of the money into foreign currency and restructuring company ownership after investigations began.
It said such actions pointed to a deliberate effort to disguise the source of the funds.
The EFCC faulted the dismissal of conspiracy charges, arguing that the law allows courts to infer a common unlawful design from coordinated actions rather than direct evidence of agreement.
It said the defendants’ roles in receiving, transferring, and utilising the funds demonstrated a coordinated scheme.
