‘Firm not charged in alleged N3.5b Paris loan scam’
An oil and gas exploration service firm, GCA Energy Limited, is in the clear following a Federal High Court, Lagos judgment striking out a suit against three aides of former Senate President Bukola Saraki, over an alleged N3.5 billion Paris loan scam.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had, in September 2019, arraigned Saraki’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Gbenga Makanjuola; a cashier in the former Senate President’s office, Kolawole Shittu; a former Managing Director of Societe-Generale Bank, Robert Chidozie (now at large); a company, Melrose General Services Limited, and its Operations Manager, Obiora Amobi, for the alleged offences.
But court documents revealed that neither GCA Energy Limited nor its officials were arraigned, despite the EFCC alleging in a December 21, 2016 report that the company paid $25,000 to Asterio Energy Services Limited, and subsequently got N12 million from a firm called Acarast Commercial.
When the EFCC concluded its investigation and arraigned those indicted in the alleged scam, GCA Energy and its officials were not included.
After almost three years of trial, Justice Akintoye Aluko upheld the preliminary objection raised by the defendant and struck out the charge.
The judge said it was invalid and incompetent.
He also held that having examined the 11 counts on the first Amended Charge, apart from stating that the alleged acts or offences were committed in Nigeria, there was no mention of either Lagos or Abuja in the charge.
“I cannot see or find anywhere on the face of the charge showing that all instructions or instruments relating to the accounts from which the defendants were alleged to have received proceeds of the alleged illegal activities were addressed to or received by the head office in Lagos.
“No mention was made of Lagos in any of the counts. Rather, Abuja was repeatedly mentioned in the statements contained in the proof of evidence as the place where the acts and activities alleged to constitute an offence took place,” Justice Aluko held.”
The judge held that what the prosecution had done was a fundamental and mandatory breach of Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act regarding territorial jurisdiction.
He said: “The extant position of the law remains that an incompetent process cannot be amended. You cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. In any case, an incompetent and invalid process is null and void.
“Coming from the foregoing, the sole issue in this case is resolved in favour of the objectors against the prosecution.”
Consequently, the judge struck out the case.
(Nation)
