Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of a Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday quashed a criminal charge preferred against a former Chief of Air Staff, Adesola Amosu, and two others over alleged N21.5 billion money laundering.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) first arraigned Amosu, alongside two other military officers, Jacob Adigun and Gbadebo Olugbenga, before Justice Mohammad Idris on June 29, 2016, on a 26-count charge.

The defendants had respectively pleaded not guilty and were each granted bail.

Delivering his judgment, Mr Aneke upheld the defendant’s preliminary objection, challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case on the grounds that they were serving military officers at the time the case was instituted.

The court noted that as of June 23, 2016, when the original charge was filed before the court, one was not sure whether the first defendant was still a serving officer of the armed forces since his exact date of retirement was not stated.

The court, however, held that the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution in paragraphs 1688 and 1695 contained letters written by the prosecution to First City Monument Bank dated January 30, 2015.

The court held that the letters showed that investigations into the instant charge had already begun as of January 30, 2015. By that time, the affidavit evidence proved that the first defendant was still in service of the armed forces.

Reiterating the apex court’s decision in the case of Ja’faru Mohammed, the court held that the investigation of the first defendant was null and void.

“Therefore, the investigation of the defendant, the original charge, the amended charge and the arraignment, which are all based on the illegal, null and void investigation, are equally null and void.

“Accordingly, prayers one, two and three sought by the first defendant in his motion on notice dated May 21, 2023, and filed June 1, 2023, are hereby granted,” he held.

The court also reached a similar decision for the second and third defendants and, accordingly, quashed the charges.

In the charge, the defendants were alleged to have committed the offence in Lagos on March 5, 2014.

The prosecution alleged that they conspired to convert N21.5 billion belonging to the Nigeria Air Force to their use. The commission said that the defendants reasonably ought to know that the funds formed part of the proceeds of their unlawful activities, namely criminal breach of trust.

The offence, it said, contravened section 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).

Shortly after the trial commenced, Justice Mohammed Idris was elevated to the appellate court, and the case was transferred to Mr Aneke.

The defendants were, consequently, re-arraigned in 2018 on an amended 13-count charge bordering on conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and money laundering.

However, they had pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted bail.

On June 1, 2023, the first defence counsel, Bolaji Ayorinde, filed a notice of preliminary objection and an affidavit of six paragraphs, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and urging it to quash the amended charge.

Defence counsel had first argued that the grounds upon which the defendants were charged took place in Abuja, so the court lacked the requisite territorial jurisdiction to hear the charge.

He had cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dele Belgore and others.

The defence had also argued that the first defendant was always material to the trial, a serving officer of the armed forces, subject to the trial by a court martial.

Besides, he had argued that sections 16 and 18(a) of the Money Laundering Act 2011 (as amended) did not create the offence of criminal breach of trust for which the defendants were charged.

Also, relying on an appellate court’s decision in the case of Brig.-Gen. Ja’faru Mohammed vs EFCC chairman and others, the defence had argued that the court had held that “the said offences in that case, were triable by a “court martial ” by virtue of section 114 of the Armed Forces Act, as they formed part of other civil offences prescribed for persons subject to service law”.

He had argued that the first defendant was at all times material to the instant trial, not just a serving officer but also the chief of air staff and was subject only to the provisions of the service law regarding arrest, invitation, interview or investigation.

He also argued that the Supreme Court elucidated upon section 123 of the Armed Forces Act 2004 in the case of Sogbesan, where the court held, among others, that a report of an allegation of an offence against an officer of the Armed Forces must be made to his commanding officer, who must investigate it in the prescribed manner before the allegation is further proceeded on.”

He argued that the above steps should be taken before the other legal steps.

The defence had, therefore, raised a sole issue for a determination whether the EFCC can arrest, arraign, and prosecute the first defendant, who was at all times material to trial, a serving military officer, without first complying with section 114, 121, 123, and 270 of the Armed Forces Act, 2004.

If the answer to the above is negative, the defence had then prayed the court to determine whether the defendant’s prosecution is not “ultra vires” the powers of the EFCC and, therefore, null and void.

He had also urged the court to determine whether it is properly “clothed” with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the charge.

Another defence counsel, Norrison Quakers, had also made similar submissions before the court urging it to quash the charge against the defendants.

On July 3, 2023, the EFCC filed a counter affidavit against the defendants’ objection and raised an issue for determining whether the defence was entitled to the reliefs sought.

(NAN)