Hon. Adeyemi Sabit Ikuforiji V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

At the Federal High Court, Lagos the Appellant and one other person were being tried for criminal conspiracy and offences respectively under Sections 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 and Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011. The Charges were amended and increased to a total of 54 in the amended charges filed on 7th June, 2013 in the Charge No. FHC/L/422c/2011. The charges relate to acceptance of various cash payments from the Lagos State House of Assembly without going through financial institutions which under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act (MLPA) are each criminal offences.

The Prosecutor, the Respondent herein, called two witnesses [PW.1 & PW.2]. Through the witnesses several documents, Exhibits 1 – 6, were tendered. Thereafter the Respondent closed his case. The Appellant’s counsel, having formed an opinion that the Respondent’s case disclosed no prima facie case, filed an application praying the trial Court to hold that the Appellant, from the Respondent’s case, had no case to answer. The application was heard.

1

The Learned trial Judge after a lengthy, and in rather verbose, consideration ruled on 26th September, 2014, that the Appellant had no case to answer. He stated in the ruling that the Respondent failed to present a prima facie case warranting the Appellant being called upon to enter upon his defence. Consequently, the Appellant was discharged.

Respondent, as the prosecutor, promptly lodged his appeal against the no-case Ruling to the Court of Appeal (the lower Court). The Notice of Appeal filed on 22nd October, 2014 by Chief Godwin Obla, SAN had 14 grounds of appeal. The grounds, shorn of their particulars, are as follows-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

GROUND ONE:

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held and concluded that counts 2 – 48 are incompetent because they were filed pursuant to Section 1(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 which said law was repealed by the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011.

GROUND TWO:

The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a perverse decision when it held that in laying counts 2-52 the prosecution merely repeated the allegation in count 1.

GROUND THREE:

The learned trial judge misdirected

2