The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has filed an appeal against the ruling of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja dismissing the charges of corruption against a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, and his then deputy, Alhaji Usman Nafada.
The appeal, filed by the EFCC’s lead counsel in the case, Festus Keyamo, at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, faulted the jedgement of Justice S.B. Belgore of the Federal High Court that there was no prima facie case to warrant Bankole defending himself.
Keyamo, in the appeal paper, faulted the jedgement on several grounds.
The first was that Belgore erred in law when he held that the accused person had no case to answer in respect of Counts two to 11 of the charge, which is in relation to criminal breach of trust.
He gave the particulars of error: “1. Even though the accused person was not a signatory to the House of Representatives’ Account, so long as he was an approving authority in respect of those accounts, then he was definitely entrusted with the accounts.
“2. Evidence clearly shows that the accused person was present at meetings where it was collectively “resolved” to obtain loans and increase “running costs”. Without those resolutions, the accounts would not have been operated/accessed in the manner they were operated/accessed.”
The second ground for the objection of the EFCC was that the trial judge erred when he held that the accused person had no case to answer in respect of counts 13 – 17 of the Charge which is in relation to theft.
Keyamo explained: “1. Both in fact and in law, the offence of theft can be charged together with criminal breach of trust, contrary to the decision of the learned trial judge.
“2. All the ingredients of the offence of theft were proved by the prosecution.”
On ground three, Keyamo said that Belgore erred when he held that the accused person had no case to answer in respect of Count One of the Charge which is in relation to conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, arguing: “1. The prosecution established all the ingredients of the said offence.
“2. So long as the accused person had no authority to approve and increase “running cost” and to obtain loans, then their resolution was an agreement to commit an act by illegal means.”
On ground four, which is that the learned trial judge erred when he held that the accused person had no case to answer in respect of Count 12 of the Charge which is in relation to conspiracy to commit theft, Keyamo said: “1. The prosecution successfully established all the ingredients of the said offence.”
The EFCC thus wants the Court of Appeal to allow the “appeal and set aside the ruling of the lower court dated 31st day of January, 2012, to the effect that the 1st Respondent has no case to answer” and sought for an order remitting the case to the lower court for retrial before another judge.”