Ex-president Buhari
The death of former President Muhammadu Buhari on Friday, scuttled hearing of the progress report on the plea bargain arrangement between former Adamawa state Governor, Murtala Nyako, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Friday, counsel to the EFCC, Mr Rotimi Jacobs, SAN informed the court that, following the death of former President Muhammadu Buhari, the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN was unable to meet with other parties to resolve outstanding issues in the settlement.
Jacobs further stated that the AGF had instructed him to request for a short adjournment.
Mathew Onoja, who announced appearance for Nyako at Friday’s proceedings did not object to the application for an adjournment just as the other defence counsel also did not raise any objection.
In a brief ruling, Justice Peter Lifu granted the application for adjournment, following a no objection to the request by the defence counsel.
He also noted that since the court had taken judicial notice of the seven-day mourning period declared by the federal government, the case was adjourned till July 25, 2025.
At the last hearing of the matter, Jacobs informed the court that both parties had started discussions on the possibility of settling the matter out-of-court, adding that, by the next adjourned date, both parties should be able to resolve all the details of the settlement.
Nyako’s counsel, Michael Aondoaka, SAN, confirmed the development, adding that the discussion had reached an advanced stage.
Aondoaka said he was positive that the matter would be resolved amicably.
The EFCC had filed a charge bordering on criminal conspiracy, stealing, abuse of office and money laundering against the defendant.
The anti-graft agency, in the charge before the court, alleged that Nyako and his son, Abdulaziz, connived with two other defendants, Zulkifikk Abba and Abubakar Aliyu and diverted over N29 billion from the treasury of the Adamawa state government.
The defendants were alleged to have diverted the funds between 2011 and 2014 using five companies.
The companies were listed as Blue Opal Limited, Sebore Farms & Extension Limited, Pagoda Fortunes Limited, Tower Assets Management Limited and Crust Energy Limited
EFCC further alleged that the defendants had, in their bid to conceal the illicit origin of the stolen funds, embarked on the development of estates in Abuja.
The agency alleged that huge sums of money which the defendants purported to be security funds, were illegally placed under the control of one Ma’aji Iro, the then Regional Manager of Zenith Bank Plc, North East, Nigeria.
They were said to have sequentially withdrawn the funds through the bank manager and channelled same for private use, contrary to Section 15 (2) (a) & (6) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable under section 15 (3) of the same Act.
It would be recalled that, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal had on January 18, 2022, ordered Nyako, and his son to enter their defence.
The appellate court, in a unanimous judgment of a three-member panel led by Justice Olabisi Ige, held that the anti-graft agency established a prima-facie case that would require explanations and dismissed as lacking in merit, separate appeals that both Nyako, his son and other defendants in the matter, lodged to set aside a ruling of the trial court that refused their no-case-submission.
After EFCC closed its case against the defendants having called 21 witnesses, they asked the trial court to discharge and acquit them rather than opening their defence.
They contended that the totality of evidence the prosecution adduced against them was not sufficient to warrant the trial court to compel them to open their defence, saying that, none of the witnesses implicated them.
However, in a ruling delivered on July 19, 2021, Justice Okon Abang held that he was satisfied that the defendants had a case to answer and consequently ordered them to open their defence to the charge preferred against them at the Federal High Court.
Comments