ENUGU, Nigeria (VOICE OF NAIJA) – The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention to reverse the discharge of former Governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, and his son, Mustapha Lamido, by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on 25 July.
The case involves the former Governor, his two sons, Aminu and Mustapha, Aminu Abubakar, and their companies, Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd, facing a 37-count amended charge of money laundering amounting to N1.35 billion fraud before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The allegations against Lamido include the abuse of his position as Governor between 2007 and 2015 laundering money received as kickbacks from companies that were awarded contracts by the Jigawa State government during his tenure.
The trial, which began in 2015, saw over 16 witnesses called by the anti-graft agency before it closed its case.
However, the defendants chose a no-case submission, claiming insufficient evidence from the prosecution to warrant their defence. Justice Ojukwu rejected the no-case submission and ordered the defendants to open their defence.
READ ALSO: PHOTOS: EFCC Secures Conviction Of 5 Internet Fraudsters In Kaduna
Mr Lamido, dissatisfied with the ruling, appealed to the appellate court.
On 25 July, the appellate court ruled in favour of the defendants, accepting their no-case submission, and subsequently discharged the former governor and his son, according to Peoples Gazette reports.
In response, the EFCC filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court on 31 July 2023, requesting the apex court to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and return the case to the trial court “to continue and conclude the proceedings.” The appeal argues that the Court of Appeal erred in law when it discharged the respondents.
One of the grounds of the appeal states that the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the case was wrongly commenced in the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court instead of Kano, leading to the striking out of the charge and the discharge of the appellants.
The appellant contends that Section 98(1) of the ACJA, 2015 confers on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court the power to transfer a case from one court to another if it promotes the ends of justice or the interest of public peace.