$6.23m Loot: EFCC Urges Court To Reject Emefiele’s No-Case Submission

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, Abuja, to dismiss the no-case submission filed by former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele, insisting that the evidence presented by the prosecution warrants him to enter his defence.

The prosecution made the submission on Tuesday before Justice Hamza Mu’azu, arguing that it had established a prima facie case against Emefiele in the ongoing trial over allegations of criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence.

Emefiele is facing an amended 20-count charge, including allegations surrounding the withdrawal of $6.23 million from the CBN and the alleged conferment of corrupt advantage in the award of contracts by the apex bank.

Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who appeared for the prosecution, told the court that a no-case submission was meant to determine whether sufficient evidence had been presented to warrant the defendant entering his defence, not to determine his guilt or assess the credibility of witnesses at that stage.

He argued that requiring Emefiele to defend himself would not amount to compelling him to prove his innocence but would provide an opportunity for him to respond to the allegations raised by the prosecution’s evidence.

On the allegations relating to CBN contracts, Oyedepo identified the essential elements of the alleged offences as Emefiele’s position as a public officer, the use of that position and the alleged conferment of corrupt advantage on his relatives or associates.

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

The prosecution maintained that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the procurement process had been manipulated to favour companies linked to Emefiele’s associates.

Oyedepo also challenged the defence’s position on the alleged undue advantage involving a company said to be associated with Sa’adatu Ramalan Yaro, described by the prosecution as an associate of the former CBN governor.

According to the prosecution, the contracts under investigation were valued at between $6 million and $10 million but allegedly did not pass through the CBN’s Major Contracts Tender Board, which Oyedepo said was established under the Public Procurement Act, 2007, and chaired by a deputy governor of the bank.

He explained that contracts exceeding $1 million were required to undergo the Board’s review before recommendations could be forwarded to the CBN governor for approval.

The Board, he added, was also responsible for checking whether employees of the apex bank served as directors of companies seeking contracts from the institution.

Oyedepo argued that bypassing the Board allegedly deprived the procurement process of the necessary checks and scrutiny, suggesting that the established procedures had been deliberately circumvented.

Citing the testimony of the 10th prosecution witness, a staff member in the CBN’s procurement department, he said at least three companies submitted bids for each contract. However, officials were allegedly instructed to process the bids in favour of a company linked to Emefiele’s associates.

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

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

He argued that the defence could not defeat the prosecution’s case merely by contending that the contracts had been executed or that funds had not been traced directly to Emefiele.

According to him, the central issue was whether the contracts were awarded through an allegedly unfair process that conferred an improper advantage on the beneficiaries.

The prosecution also told the court that the company in question 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 in the case.

Oyedepo 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 also maintained that recommendations made by CBN officials did not absolve Emefiele of responsibility for the final approvals, arguing that the former governor should have returned the contracts to the Major Contracts Tender Board rather than approve them.

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

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

On the alleged withdrawal of $6.23 million, Oyedepo said the money was taken from the CBN between February and around June, before Emefiele’s removal from office, purportedly on the strength of letters attributed to former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha.

He argued that testimony from witnesses, including Mustapha and a forensic analyst, indicated that the letters used to facilitate the release of the funds were forged.

The prosecution also relied on the testimony of the 15th prosecution witness, who reportedly told the court that the transaction triggered an automatic notification to Emefiele because the relevant account went into debit.

Oyedepo argued that Emefiele allegedly failed to take action despite the notification, raising questions of criminal negligence and breach of trust in view of his alleged control over the funds.

He further told the court that evidence showed the money was released to an individual on Emefiele’s instructions. Part of the funds was allegedly used to renovate one of the former CBN governor’s properties, while the balance was recovered from the recipient.

Responding to the defence’s argument that the prosecution’s case was speculative, Oyedepo maintained that the evidence presented was capable of supporting reasonable inferences.

“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 contention that the prosecution had not conducted a forensic examination of Emefiele’s signature, Oyedepo argued that the absence of such an examination did not automatically invalidate the forgery allegation.

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

The prosecution also drew the court’s attention to a Supreme Court decision involving approximately $2 million and certain properties, urging Justice Mu’azu to consider the authority in evaluating its case.

However, opposing the application, Emefiele’s counsel, Mathew Burkaa, SAN, urged the court to discharge his client, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

Burkaa maintained that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that Emefiele had conferred undue advantage on his wife or associates.

“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,” the defence counsel said.

The court subsequently stated that the date for its ruling on the no-case submission would be communicated to the parties.

A ruling on the application will determine whether Emefiele will be required to enter his defence or be discharged on the basis that the prosecution has failed to establish a case requiring an answer.