An Abuja Federal High Court on Friday discharged and acquitted a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission could not prove a 16-count criminal charge bordering on a N9bn contract scam filed against him.
Justice Evoh Chukwu, in a ruling on a
no-case-submission filed by Bankole after the prosecution had called its
witnesses, held that there was no evidence linking the former speaker
to the alleged offences.
The EFCC had accused Bankole of perpetrating a contract fraud, involving the purchase of two Range Rover bulletproof vehicles; two Range Rover vehicles (without bullet proof); three Mercedes Benz S-600 cars; 400 units of DSTV systems; 400 television sets; 800 units of desktop computers; 100 units of Sharp digital copier; and 400 units of HP LaserJets 2600N.
The addresses presented by the companies
which executed the contracts for the procurement of the items turned
out to be false as well as other information provided in their profiles.
The anti-graft agency alleged that most
of the purchases were contrary to Sections 17 to 56 of the Public
Procurement Act No.14 of 2007, and punishable under Section 58(5) of the
same Act.
With a private lawyer, Mr. Festus
Keyamo, prosecuting the case, Bankole was arraigned over the 16-count
charge, to which he pleaded not guilty.
However, the trial proceeded with the
prosecution calling six witnesses, including officials of the National
Assembly, to testify.
After the prosecution had called its
last witness, Bankole, through his lawyer, Mr. O. Akoni, SAN, filed an
application for a no-case-submission, asking the court to acquit and
discharge him on the grounds that the EFCC had not established a prima
facie case against him.
Ruling on the no-case-submission on
Friday, Justice Chukwu stressed that, in order to prove the case against
the former Speaker, the EFCC must prove that the “accused person
(Bankole) colluded with the supplier or contractor to supply at inflated
prices.”
He held that the anti-graft agency was
unable to prove such. The judge further noted that witnesses brought by
the prosecution all admitted that Bankole was not the chief accounting
officer of the House.
Justice Chukwu added that all the
witnesses also admitted that the contract for the purchase of the
controversial items followed due process.
He said, “All the witnesses told the
court that the procedure for the award of the contract followed due
process. None of them showed that the accused person entered into a
collusive agreement with the contractors or their agents.
“The accused person does not own any of
the companies,” he added, citing the testimony of some of the
prosecution witnesses, who told the court that investigations did not
disclose that Bankole was a shareholder, director or signatory to any of
the companies that benefitted from the contract.
Continuing, the judge held that the prosecution did not provide any evidence to prove that Bankole benefitted from the contract.
“In the totality of the evidence of the
prosecution, there is nothing to show that the accused person acted with
intention to defraud – there is no evidence to show that he selected
the companies that were awarded the contract.
“There is no evidence to show that any of the companies were fronting for the accused person.
“There is no evidence to show that the accused person was a director or a shareholder in any of the companies.”
On January 31, 2012, a Federal Capital
Territory High Court headed by Justice S. B. Belgore, had freed Bankole
and his former Deputy, Ibrahim Nafada, of a criminal charged involving
an alleged mismanagement of N38m.
No comments:
Post a Comment