Tag: Court

 

Former officials of the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS), who retired on the rank of Comptroller of Immigration, have sued the Minister of Interior over alleged failure to pay their withheld entitlements.

The aggrieved ex-officials, in a suit filed at the the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), alleged that NIS and other relevant bodies had failed to accord them their entitlements since they retired years ago.

The 176 claimants, led by Abalaka-Betty Ajuma, through their lawyer, Maroof Giwa, named the Interior Minister, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, as 1st defendant in the suit marked: NICN/ABJ/146/2026.

They also named the NIS’ CG, Kemi Nandap; NIS; the Civil Defence; Correctional, Fire and Immigration Board (CDCFIS); the CDCFIS Chairman and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr lateef Fagbemi, SAN, as co-defendants.

The claimants stated that by the condition of service of the NIS, published in a gazette released by the Federal Government in 2015, they were entitled to a car, domestic staff, among others, upon their retirement at the rank of Comptroller.

They, however, alleged that the entitlements had been denied since they exited service honourably years ago.

They gave the name of the gazette as: “Unified and Reviewed Conditions of Service for the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), Federal Fire, Nigeria Immigration and Nigeria Prisons Services hereinafter referred to as “Conditions of Service, 2015.”

The claimants stated that the gazette expressly provides that any officer of the NIS, who retires on the rank of Comptroller of Immigration, shall be entitled to one official car and the services of five domestic staff on various salary levels.

The retirees, who said they satisfied all conditions for the enjoyment of the retirement entitlements, stated that “it is customary and obligatory on the defendants to give out cars to retiring personnel on the rank of Comptroller of Immigration and above.”

They added that despite their retirement on the qualifying rank of Comptroller of Immigration, “the defendants have failed, refused, and neglected to provide them with the official cars or the monetary equivalents thereof.”

The claimants stated that they retired at different years, adding that upon retirement, they became immediately entitled to the benefits on retirement, stipulated in the gazetted condition of service of the NIS.

They said their decision to sue was informed by the alleged failure of the defendants to heed their demands contained in the many reminders and pre-action notices sent by their lawyers.

The claimants want the court to, among others, declare that each of them is entitled to be provided with one car as benefits on retirement under the gazetted condition of service of 2015, having retired on the rank of Comptroller of Immigration.

They also seek a declaration that the defendant’s alleged failure to provide them with the said entitlements as stipulated in the unified condition of service is unlawful, wrongful and unconstitutional.

The aggrieved retirees want the court to issue an order directing the defendants to provide them with the entitlements or N15 million each in the place of a physical car.

The case, assigned to Justice Rakiya Haastrup, had been fixed for June 23 for hearing.

 

A firm, Cabota Power Company Limited has broken its silence on the ongoing case before the Federal High Court of Nigeria, saying the dispute stems from a currency swap deal with Ocean Lord Limited and stressing that business operations remain unaffected.

Speaking through its legal team, led by Bar. Solomon Muazu, on Friday, the firm noted it would not delve into issues reserved for the court.

Muazu, in a statrment, said this was out of respect for judicial sanctity and the subjudice rule.

According to the statement, the matter arose from a commercial transaction within an existing business relationship between Cabota Power and Ocean Lord Ltd.

The company described it as a contractual disagreement, not a breakdown of operations.

Cabota Power disclosed that it had already made substantial payments exceeding ₦450 million under the swap arrangement.

The company said the complainant grew dissatisfied with the pace of payments, prompting legal action.

The firm added that both parties have continued constructive talks aimed at settling the outstanding balance.

Recent court filings, the statement said, reflected those ongoing settlement discussions.

At the last adjourned sitting, the Federal High Court was briefed on the payment negotiations.

The judge then adjourned the matter to dates in July and October, after the court’s annual vacation, to allow parties time to finalise a settlement agreement.

Cabota Power reiterated its commitment to lawful conduct and responsible commercial practice.

The company said it is pursuing all legitimate mechanisms that can lead to an amicable resolution in line with Nigerian law and standard business practice.

The company also dismissed concerns about its financial health.

It stated that the court case does not affect its operational capacity, business continuity or corporate obligations.

Cabota Power cited active engagements with Access Bank UK Limited, which has offered a $16 million working facility, and ongoing repayment of the $3.7 million already drawn.

“Additional partnerships with Zenith Bank, investors, technical partners, and other stakeholders remain intact,” the firm said.

Management expressed confidence in the judicial process and optimism that the adjournment period will allow room for a commercially reasonable resolution.

The solicitors commended stakeholders, clients, and financial institutions for their maturity and continued support.

Cabota Power concluded that disputes rooted in contracts are often resolved through structured settlement and reconciliation, especially where there is evidence of substantial performance and willingness to settle.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday made an order of perpetual injunction restraining the eNaira Payment Solutions Ltd from parading itself as the registered proprietor of the trademark, “eNaira.”

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, also granted the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)’s counter claims and awarded the sum of N10 million against the company, the plaintiff in the suit.

Justice Omotosho ordered the eNaira Payment Solutions Ltd to immediately change its name to another distinct name without the use of the word “Naira.”

The judge agreed with the defendants’ arguments that though the company had been incorporated since 2004, it had a misleading name.

Details later

He held that “the name chosen by the plaintiff on its incorporation is in the circumstances unregistrable due to the misleading nature of the name which suggests government’s patronage.”

The judge held that the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) was, therefore, right to issue the directive to the company to change its name in line with Section 852(2)(a) and (b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that eNaira Payment Solutions Ltd had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1113/2021, sued CBN, the Registrar of Trademarks and the Registrar General of CAC as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

In the amended writ of summons dated and filed on April 5, 2024, the plaintiff sought 17 prayers including a N90.10 billion in damages.

It prayed the court to restrained the defendants from withdrawing the trademark, “eNaira,” from it and stopping the CBN from claiming or conferring ownership of the name on itself.

It described the acts of the defendants as unconstitutional takeover of its personal property which it had maintained for over 20 years, among other reliefs.

But CBN filed a further amended statement of defence and a counter claim dated and filed on July 5, 2024, and marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1591/2021.

The apex bank sought five reliefs, including, a perpetual order restraining the company from parading itself as the registered proprietor of the Trademark “eNaira”.

The CBN sought an order directing the company to pay it a N20 billion as general damages for the colossal and global embarrassment it caused to it by laying claim to the proprietorship of a trademark that does not belong to it.

It also sought a fine of N200 million as a cost of the suit.

Besides, the CAC, in its statement of defence and counter claim dated April 30, 2024, but filed May 2, 2024, sought an order directing the company to change its name to another distinct name without the use of the word, “Naira.”

In establishing its case, the plaintiff called one witness, the CBN and CAC also called a witness each while parties tendered documentary evidence as exhibits.

Delivering a consolidated judgement in the suits, Justice Omotosho observed that the Trademark Registry, through a letter dated Nov. 15, 2021, had written to eNaira Ltd canceling and withdrawing the acceptance letters issued to the company in respect of applications for eNaira in class 36 and 42.

He observed that the registry had directed for the withdrawal on the grounds that “eNaira is a national intellectual property and constitutes a symbol and national asset of Nigeria.”

According to the judge, as it stands, the plaintiff has no greater legal right to the trademark than the 1st defendant.

“A party that has no legal right cannot be entitled to an injunction

“The purport of this is that prima facie, the plaintiff has no valid trademark to the exclusive use of the eNaira trademark,” he said.

Besides, the judge held that by Section 852(2) of CAMA, CAC is at liberty not to register a company with names which suggest that the company enjoys government patronage.

“The ‘eNaira’ name is so closely linked to the legal tender of Nigeria which is exclusively controlled by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

“The plaintiff with the name ‘eNaira’ even though it had been incorporated since 2004, has a misleading name.

“An average person on the street is most likely to think that the plaintiff is an agent of the Federal Government or the Central Bank of Nigeria.

“The proposed business of the plaintiff which according to the evidence in chief of PW-1 is the creation and control of a digital fiat currency on their electronic payment platform.

“This, no doubt, creates the impression that the plaintiff has the authority of the Federal Government of Nigeria to issue and control a digital form of the Naira.

“A misleading name is a ground for the 3rd defendant (CAC) to direct a company to change its name,” he said.

Justice Omotsoho observed that the section of the law also gives CAC the power to change any company’s name which must be complied with within six weeks from the date of the directive.

“The plaintiff had six weeks to comply with the directive which was issued 9th December, 2021.

“The plaintiff has however not complied with this directive,” he said.

The judge held that allowing the plaintiff to have control to the name is tantamount to surrendering Nigerian sovereignty to a private company, citing sections of the Trademarks Act to back his decision.

According to the judge, the world today is becoming more digitally advanced and this is even more prevalent in the financial sector where there is a large adoption of cryptocurrencies by nations around the world.

“Any digital currency with the name ‘eNaira’ will no doubt create the impression that it is an official digital form of the Naira.

“The plaintiff cannot assert control over the ‘eNaira’ name or issue it.

“This would be disastrous for the Nigerian economy and will create skepticism among users as it is not guaranteed by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

“The claims of the plaintiff are therefore bound to fail while the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants will succeed on the strength of the evidence before this court.

“In final analysis, this court will rule against the plaintiff as the claim is incompetent on grounds that it was not brought under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.

“Furthermore, the facts and the law are against the plaintiff.

“In contrast, the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants succeeds,” the judge ruled.

Justice Omotosho, consequently, dismissed the eNaira Payment Solutions Ltd’s suit and declared that the company was not the registered owner of the Trademark “eNaira.”

He declared that the plaintiff, not being an agency of government or an entity licensed to issue legal tender in Nigeria, was not entitled to register the Trademark, “eNaira.”

The judge, who ordered the company to change its name to another distinct name without the use of the word, “Naira,” also gave an order of perpetual injunction restraining the firm from parading itself as the registered proprietor of the Trademark “eNaira.”

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday granted leave to Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd to apply for a judicial review by way of declarations and injunctions against the executive action of the Federal Government in splitting OPL 245.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling, held that the motion ex-parte, moved by the company’s lawyer, Reuben Atabo, SAN, in respect of the relief sought, was meritorious.

Justice Umar, who took particular notice of some paragraphs in the affidavit attached to the motion, said the court was satisfied by the depostions.

The judge then adjourned the matter until June 11 to enable Malabu file and serve the originating summons in respect of the prayers sought.

Malabu had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2026, named the president, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Minister of Petroleum Resources as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

The company had alleged that the government splitted OPL 245 into four separate assets and further reallocating them to Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited, Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Ltd, Nigerian Agip Exploration Company Ltd and Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited.

It said the reallocation was via the OPL 245 Resolution Agreement executed on or about March 5.

It further alleged that this was done without the consent of the company’s directors.

 

The bail application filed by the detained Chidiebere Justice Mark, popularly known as Justice Crack, on Thursday suffered a setback at the Federal High Court in Abuja after his lawyers clashed over representation.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had, on May 4, fixed today for hearing of Mark’s bail request shortly after he was arraigned by the Department of State Services (DSS) and pleaded not guilty to a three-count charge.

The adjournment followed an application by Mark’s lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, who told the court of the need to admit his client to bail pending trial.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the DSS had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/253/2026, sued Crack, a social media influencer, as sole defendant over alleged cybercrime offences linked to a viral video concerning the Nigerian Army.

Mark was alleged to have circulated a false information and publication of materials capable of causing public unrest.

The defendant, who was reportedly arrested by the Nigerian Army, was accused of publishing the viral video and accompanying statements through his X handle, @JusticeCrack, alleging inadequate feeding of Nigerian soldiers.

When the case was called on Thursday, Leyii Abueh, from the Federal Ministry of Justice, informed the court that the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had taken over the matter from the DSS in line with the relevant section of the law.

However, Femi Balogun and Abubakar stood up to announce apperance for the defendant.

Balogun told the court that he was briefed by Mark’s family to take up the case.

He notified the court about the defence bail application already filed.

But Abubakar insisted he was the defendant’s lawyer, who had been appearing in the case and he had not been disengaged to handle the matter.

Justice Abdulmalik then asked the defendant to identify his lawyer and Mark pointed at Balogun.

Against this development, Abubakar applied to withdraw all the processes he filed in respect of the case, including the bail application which Balogun had relied on.

The judge struck out the processes filed by Abubakar and adjourned until May 18 for hearing of the fresh bail application.

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday sentenced the former Minister of Power, Mr Saleh Mamman, to 75 years jail term in absentia over N33.8 billion money laundering offences.

Justice James Omotosho, who convicted Mamman in all the 12 counts preferred against him by the EFCC, ordered that the sentence shall run consecutively and not concurrently.

Justice Omotosho said that the absence of the ex-minister in court today and on the last adjourned date was a deliberate attempt to stop the wheel of justice.

The judge, who agreed with the EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, that though the defendant was not in court, the provisions of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, give the court the power to proceed with the sentencing, held that Mamman cannot claimed to have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

The judge consequently sentenced the convict to seven years imprisonment in Counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 without option of fine.

Justice Omotosho also sentenced him to three year-jail term in Count 4 with an option of fine of a N10 million and two years’ imprisonment in Count 5 without option of fine.

The judge, who ordered that the sentence shall run consecutively, said this shall commenced from the date of his arrest.

He, therefore, ordered all security agencies in and outside the country, including the INTERPOL, to arrest Mammn anywhere he is sighted and handed over to the Nigerian Correctional Services for his jail term.

Also based on the application by counsel for the prosecution, which was not challenged by the ex-minister’s lawyer, Mohammed Ahmed, Justice Omotosho also ordered the final forfeiture of Mamman’s two properties located in choiced areas of Abuja and monies in different currencies recovered by the anti-graft agencies.

The judge further ordered that the differential amount between the monies and assets recovered from Mamman and the sum of N22 billion the prosecution was able to establish during the trial, out of the N33. 8 billion allegedly siphoned from the Zungeru and Mambilla Hydro Electric Power projects, be refunded by the convict.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Omotosho had, on May 7, convicted Mamman in absentia over allegations of money laundering.

Although Mamman was conspicuously absent in court, Justice Omotosho, in the judgment, held that the EFCC had been able to established the 12-count amended charge against the defendant beyond reasonable.

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an application seeking a stay of execution of an earlier judgment delivered in favour of the United Methodist Church in Nigeria (UMCN).

Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a ruling on Monday, held that the motion on notice lacked merit.

Justice Egwuatu reaffirmed the principle that a successful party is entitled to enjoy the benefits of a valid court judgment pending appeal.

The judge held that the court would not allow the applicants, who are members of the breakaway Global Methodist Church in Nigeria (GMCN), to enjoy the stay when their act had been declared unlawful.

He said seeking a leave to appeal an appeal already filed is an abuse of court process.

The applicant; the GMCN, had filed the motion through their lawyer, Luka Haruna, SAN.

They had sought an order restraining the enforcement of the March 30 judgment delivered by Justice Egwuatu, and preserving control over church properties, funds, accounts and institutional assets across the country while the appeal is pending.

Haruna had argued that failure to grant the motion could expose the church to instability, administrative confusion, and possible irreparable damage.

He maintained that the appeal raised substantial legal and constitutional issues deserving consideration by the appellate court.

He further contended that the disputed assets included trust properties, bank accounts and church facilities spread nationwide, stressing that the court should preserve the status quo to prevent actions that could prejudice the appeal.

However, Chinedu Odura, who appeared for the respondent (UMCN), opposed the motion.

Odura argued that the applicants failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required for the grant of a stay of execution.

The lawyer maintained that there was no credible evidence showing that church assets or properties were under threat or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the judgment was enforced.

In his ruling, Justice Egwuatu agreed with the arguments of the respondent.

The judge held that applications for stay of execution must be supported by convincing evidence demonstrating special circumstances and a real likelihood of irreparable harm.

The judge said that speculative fears and generaliaed allegations were insufficient grounds for granting such relief.

He held that the respondents were lawfully entitled to enjoy the fruits of the judgment already delivered and that the applicant had not demonstrated that execution of the judgment would destroy the subject matter of the appeal.

He also emphasised the importance of maintaining legal order and institutional stability while recognising that the issues raised by the applicant could still be addressed by the appellate court in due course.

Consequently, Justice Egwuatu dismissed the motion seeking a stay of execution.

Reacting to the ruling, the Presiding Bishop of UMCN, Ande Emmanuel, expressed confidence in the will of God and the rule of law.

He described the court as an upholder of justice and fairness.

Bishop Emmanuel called on members of the church to remain calm and peaceful in the aftermath of the ruling, despite the judgment being in favour of the church.

He stated that the church remains committed to lawful and peaceful processes in handling issues relating to the dispute.

The bishop further stressed that UMCN is prepared to reclaim all properties and institutional assets occupied by the breakaway GMCN in accordance with the law.

He, however, maintained that the church remains open to reconciliation, urging members of the breakaway group to return to their original place of worship in order to continue promoting the gospel of Christ in unity and peace.

Justice Egwuatu had, on March 30, affirmed the UMCN as the validly registered name at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a judgment, directed the CAC to immediately reverse the church’s name from GMCN to UMCN.

Justice Egwuatu also ordered the commission to reverse the change ‘of the names of the trustees of the church made to the incorporated certificate of the church on Oct. 19, 2024, for being unlawful, invalid, null and void.

The judge ordered the Zenith Bank Plc, the 3rd defendant in the suit, to grant members of the plaintiffs’ church (UMCN) immediate access and control to all the church accounts opened and domiciled with the bank.

The plaintiffs; Benjamin Simon, Rev. Dr Eunice Iliya, Bishop Emmanuel Ande and Rev. Eli Yaku, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/ 1891/2024, had sued CAC, Incorporated Trustees of Global Methodist Church in Nigeria and Zenith Bank Plc as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

The dispute arose following the decision by the CAC to approve a name change for the church allegedly initiated by a breakaway faction, identified as the GMCN.

The UMCN challenged the action, arguing that due process was not followed and that the amendnent violated both statutory provisions and the church’s internal governance structure.

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday dismissesd a suit instituted by Mr Fubara Dagogo, a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), seeking to void the party’s recently conducted national congress.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a judgment, held that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case, which bordered on the internal affairs of a political party.

Justice Abdulmalik held that issues surrounding candidates’ nomination and purchase of nomination form, including expression of interest form, are non-justiciable.

The judge, who struck out the suit, awarded a N10 million fine each against Dagogo and his lawyer, making a total of N20 million, in favour of all the four defendants.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Dagogo, an aspirant in the recently concluded APC national congress, had filed the suit to challenge his alleged exclusion from the party’s national convention election.

The plaintiff, through his lawyer, Ogochukwu Onyema, named APC and Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, party’s National Chairman, as 1st and 2nd defendants.

Dagogo also listed Hon Victor Giadom, party’s National Vice Chairman, South South, and Sulaiman Muitamma, APC’s National Organising Secretary, as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively.

In the originating summons, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2026 dated March 22 and filed March 23 by his lawyer, Dagogo sought six reliefs.

The aggrieved aspirant prayed the court to nullify the outcome of any party’s national congress for the position of National Vice Chairman, South South, without his physical participation.

He urged the judge to determine whether there could be a legitimate zonal congress for South South APC with his alleged unlawful exclusion after he was duly cleared and paid for his expression of interest (EoI) and nomination forms.

He prayed the court to declare that by virtue of APC’s Payment Acknowledgment Receipt No. 26827 dated March 13 and issued to him, he is entitled to be issued with the requisite EoI and Nomination Forms as an aspirant for the position of National Vice Chairman, South —South Nigeria.

He equally prayed the court to award a general damages of N100 million against the 3rd and 4th defendants for the discomfitures, embarrassments and mental torture, they occasioned to him with their ill conduct.

But the APC, in its earlier preliminary objection filed by the former lawyer, Kayode Okunade, urged the court to strike out or dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

Okunade also prayed the court for an order striking out the originating summons filed by Dagogo as incompetent.

The lawyer, in his eight-ground argument, said the subject matter of the suit bordered on the internal affairs of a political party, which was non-justiciable and outside the jurisdiction of the court.

He said Dagogo’s complaint, relating to non-issuance of nomination form despite payment, concerned the conduct of party’s congresses and pre-primary processes, which were within the exclusive domestic jurisdiction of the party.

Okunade argued that the applicant lacked the locus standi to institute the action, having not been duly recognised as a valid aspirant under the APC Constitution and Guidelines.

He said the suit was premature, the applicant having failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the party’s constitution.

The lawyer, who said the suit constituted an abuse of court process, aimed at inviting the court to interfere in the discretionary powers of a political party, argued that Dagogo had not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the respondents.

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday convicted the former Minister of Power, Mr Saleh Mamman, over allegations bordering on money laundering offences to the tune of N33. 8 billion.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgmemt, also issued a warrant of arrest against Mamman, who was conspicuously absent in court.

Justice Omotosho ordered that the ex-minister should be produced in court in the next adjourned date by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for sentencing.

The judge then adjourned the matter until May 13 for the defendant to be sentenced.

The order followed an application by EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, shortly after Mamman was found guilty of the 12-counts charge and convicted accordingly.

“We are very grateful my lord for the well delivered judgment.

“Section 352 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, particularly Sub 5, talks about the power of the honourable court to impose sentence when a defendant is arrested or surrendered himself to court.

“We therefore ask for arrest warrant and a date for sentencing my lord,” he said.

However, Mamman’s lawyer, Mohammed Ahmed, begged the court for an adjournment to enable his client present himself.

But when the judge asked Ahmed when he felt the defendant could be contacted to appear in court, the lawyer said he would contact the ex-minister’s personal assistant.

“I delivered the judgment because you said you didn’t know how long it will take you to get the defendant and the court cannot continue to wait.

“This is an attempt to arrest the judgment.

“It is an attempt by counsel to arrest the judgment which the court will not fall into,” he said.

The judge then directed the parties to take a date for the sentencing but Ahmed restated that the defence team had been unable to reach their client.

“We will do our possible best to inform his P. A. my lord,” he said.

“So you don’t have access to him? And you want the court to adjourn until when?” the judge aaked.

Responding, Oyedepo said it was obvious that in view of Ahmed’s statement, he cannot get Mamman.

“Therefire, we will be asking for his arrest warrant. The defendant is now a convict my lord and we urge your lordship to issue the arrest warrant,” he said.

Earlier, the judge delivered the judgement in Mamman’s absence.

In the judgmemt, Justice Omotosho held that the EFCC had been able to established the 12-count amended charge against the defendant beyond reasonable.

“The prosecution has established that, at least, N22 billion naira was siphoned by the defendant and his cronies.

“This is sufficient to sustain the charge. Consequently, the defendant is hereby convicted of Count 1 of the charge.

“The defence did not offer any credible evidence to rebut the evidence of the prosecution.

“Upon the unchallenged evidence of the prosecution, the court hereby convicts the defendant of Count 1 of the charge,” Justice Omotosho said.

The judge held that Mamman’s act of diverting funds meant for other purposes such as the Zungeru and Mambila Hydroelectric Power Project to his own use was quite an eyesore.

“The sheer greed of the defendant and his comrades in crime is nothing but a downright shameful thing.

“For defendant, who held a critical position such as Ministry of Power, rather than being concerned with creating a legacy of solving the epileptic power supply in the country, the defendant began siphoning and converting monies for serious projects into private pockets.

“The defendant was living large at the expense of ordinary Nigerians who had suffered from the consequence of his malfeasance. ”

“Little wonder that Nigeria has remained in darkness now,” the judge said.

According to Justuce Omotosho, I must say the defendant was ingenious in trying to hide his involvement by using proxy companies and accomplices to pick the funds for him.

“However, the diligent investigation of the prosecution was able to link him to the said funds.

“This court must salute the detailed nature of the investigation carried out in this matter and for presenting a coherent and cogent case against the defendant.

“The defendant on the other hand is condemned for greedily converting public funds to his own use.

“In final analysis, the prosecution has established the 12-count charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

“Consequently, he is hereby convicted as charged,” Justice Omotosho ruled.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mamman served as Minister of Power between 2019 and 2021.

The ex-minister, who recently Indicated his intention to vie for the 2027 governorship race in Taraba, obtained the nomination form on the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC).

The EFCC, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024, had preferred a 12-count amended charge against the ex-minister as sole defendant.

The commission, in July 2024, arraigned Mamman on alleged money laundering and conspiracy with officials at the ministry and some private companies to “indirectly convert” the sum of N33.8 billion meant for the Zungeru and Mambilla Hydro Electric Power projects.

The former minister, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The anti-graft agency, in proving its case, called 17 prosecution witnesses (PWs) through its lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who is also the Director, Public Prosecutions of the Federation.

The commission also tendered 43 exhibits against the defendant before closing its case.

However, Mamman, through his lawyer, Femi Atteh, SAN, did not call any witness in his defence.

But Mamman, in his final written address dated March 31 but filed April 1, formulated three issues for determination.

These were, “whether having regard to the failure of the prosecution to produce vital documents in the prosecution’s possession which are required for the defence of the defendant and several other acts and omissions of the prosecution which denied the defendant of a fair trial, the trial of the defendant was conducted in accordance with the principles of fair hearing?

“Whether the proceedings of this honourable court was conducted upon a valid charge and the jurisdiction of this honourable court was properly invoked to activate this proceedings?

“Whether the prosecution has proffered credible, admissible, legal evidence sufficient to make a finding of guilt in respect of all the charges/counts proffered against the defendant?”

But the EFCC, in its final written address filed by Oyedepo on April 14, asked: “Whether in view of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-17 and Exhibits PWA to PWFF8 admitted in evidence, it can be said that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the case against the defendant.”

Delivering the judgement, the judge resolved all the three issues raised by Mamman against him.

“The defence in this case attempted to recall PW-2 to testify for the defendant after the said PW-2 was cross examined and discharged by this court.

“This attempt by the defence is without doubt a strange procedure as it is liable to put the court in a position where it has to choose which of the evidence of PW-2 to believe.

“Whether the one for the prosecution or the one for the defence.

“Where the court permits such, then there is no way to know if the defence would recall all the other 16 witnesses for the prosecution as its own witnesses.

“The defence had the chance to cross examine PW-2 and elicit any evidence it desired.

“It cannot be allowed to make a mockery of the justice system by turning around to call the same PW-2 as its own witness.

“This is a ridiculous notion which this court will not accord any dignity to.

“The intention of the Defence is not to clear ambiguities but to rubbish the evidence of PW-2 and waste the time of this Court.

“No miscarriage of justice has occurred as a result of prohibiting PW-2 from being recalled.

“Consequently, this issue is resolved in favour of the prosecution,” he said.

PW-2, Abdulkarim Ozi Ibrahim, is an official of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF), Treasury House, where he serves as the director of the Federal Projects Financial Management Department.

On the issue of non-production of the books of PW-9 and PW-11 showing how and who they handed over cash to after their accounts were credited, the judge said the defence did not have the secondary evidence of the books to make a notice to produce useful information in the case.

Besides, he said to make matters worse, the prosecution is at liberty to tender whichever evidence it deems fit.

“Now a notice to produce is useful where a party intends to tender the secondary evidence of a document.

*This is according to Section 91 of the Evidence Act.

“Consequently, this issue is resolved in favour of the prosecution,” Justice Omotosho said.

The judge equally held that on the issue of the objection that the amended charge was incompetent, the prosecution is generally empowered to amend or even frame a new charge and that same will be allowed by the court in line with Sections 216 and 217 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

On the substantive issue, Justice Omotosho observed that the burden on the prosecution to establish the guilt of a defendant is quite a heavy burden to discharge, which the EFCC had been able to do beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge observed that some of the EFCC’s witnesses gave evidence on how monies budgeted for the power project were moved under disguised on the instruction of the ex-minister.

The judge said: “PW-9, Abdullahi Suleman is a Bureau De Change operator who has been operating for about 25 years.

“According to him, he has several companies which he transacts with, including Prymint Investment and the other companies linked to the defendant.

“PW-9 stated that he knows one Maina Goje who is in the same business with him. He said Maina Goje usually approaches him and asks for his account number which he uses to purchase dollars.

“He said Maina Goje began requesting for more accounts and same were used to purchase US Dollars.

“He stated that the transactions in question commenced in 2019 and continued until 2024, with a total value of approximately ₦22 billion.”

He said the witness told the court that one Maina Goje would send an individual named Misbahu to him.

“According to him, whenever Maina Goje was unavailable, he would call to inform him that ‘Yaro’ was coming.

“He explained that Misbahu was commonly referred to as “Yaro” or “Yaron Minister.”

“He further stated that Maina Goje would provide him with account details for payments to be made, either in naira or in dollars.

“He added that the ‘Minister’ referred to in the nickname ‘Yaron Minister’ was the defendant, Saleh Mamman,” the judge said.

The judge said PW-10, Misbahu Idris, an Accountant with the Niger Delta Power Holding Company, Abuja and former Personal Assistant to ex-minister, said the defendant is his uncle and he worked with him for about two years.

Justice Omotosho said Idris testified that he knew Mr Maina Goje and also Mustafa Abubakar Bida.

“He said he got to know Mustafa Abubakar Bida when he called him one day and introduced himself that it was the defendant that gave his number to him to call him.

“He said that the defendant told him to call him and that he will be calling him from time to time, sending him to meet one Maina Goje in Wuse Zone 4, to collect messages for the defendant.

“PW-10 began meeting the said Maina Goje who sometimes gave him US Dollars or transfers Naira into PW-10’s First Bank account.

“PW10 said he usually informs the Defendant about these monies and the Defendant said he would tell him how to spend the money.”

The judge observed that the witness also have evidence that he refunded the sum of N190 million to EFCC on Mamman’s behalf who gave him the money for the refund.

He observed that though the former minister denied the allegations in his written address, the evidence of PW-1, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, among others, clearly linked Mamman to the offences.

The judge observed that though the exact sum of N33. 8 billion could not be proven by the prosecution, he said such issue was immaterial.

He said the fundamental issue was whether the prosecution had been able to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.