*Court acquits ex-banker of $153m fraud

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Wednesday discharged and acquitted a former Director of First Bank Plc, Dauda Lawal of an alleged $153million fraud charge.

Justice Muslim Hassan made the order following an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

EFCC counsel Mr. U. U. Buhari told the judge that the Commission’s decision to withdraw the charge will enable it conduct further investigations on the matter.

He also informed the judge that the EFCC is finding it difficult to arrest other suspects in the case, especially, a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke.

Buhari said: “We are of the opinion to withdraw this charge at this stage, considering the evidence. There will be a need for further investigation.

“Secondly, the prosecution also found that due to the defendant standing trial before my lord, by the availability of facts and the consequences of the further investigation that needs to be carried out, the defendants cannot be tried alone.”

The four-count charge was previously being prosecuted by Mr. Wahab Shittu, who led others including Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo.

Defence counsel, P. I. N. Ikwueto (SAN), did not oppose the application but urged the court to discharge and acquit his client.

Ikwueto observed that Lawal was originally arraigned alongside others, but the charge was amended and the others were left out.

He was then charged alone, trial commenced, the EFCC called three witnesses, who testified and were cross-examined before it brought his application for withdrawal of the charge.

According to him, the case having gone this far, entitled the defendant to an acquittal.

Citing Sections 108 and 355 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), he argued that whatever charges the EFCC intended to bring, should be on a clean slate.

Ikwueto said: “Section 108(3) of ACJA, enjoins your Lordship, if satisfied on the facts of the case before you, to make an order acquitting the defendant in the charge before you.

“As your lordship will remember, the prosecution has called three witnesses who have been examined in-chief and fully cross- examined…”

“Whilst I agree that Section 108 (2) (a) is not applicable here, I would like my lord to read Section 108 (2) (a) with 108 (3) of ACJA because these provisions will aid your lordship in discharging the charge against the defendant.

“Further, your lordship should read Section 355 of the ACJA, by that section, it states, ‘before the final order is made, if the court is satisfied’, it means that it is completely at your discretion and I would like your lordship to acquit the defendant from the charge.

In his ruling, the judge berated the EFCC for not putting its house in order and for wasting the time of the court.

Justice Hassan wondered why the anti-graft agency arraigned the defendants in December 2018, only for it to now claim it needed more time to carry out further investigation.

He said the commission could not eat its cake and still have it, especially as the defendant is entitled to a fair and speedy trial as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution.

Justice Hassan held: “This case suffered several adjournments at the instance of the prosecution. The prosecution called three witnesses who were fully cross examined. The defendant never missed any court date…

“I am satisfied that the appropriate order to make is an acquittal. The defendant is hereby discharged and acquitted on the said amended charge.”