Scandal

AN Abuja High Court Friday ruled that former chairman of the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy regime, Farouk Lawan, and the secretary of the committee, Boniface Emenalo, must stand trial over the seven-count charge preferred against them by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), over alleged receipt of $620,000 bribe.
Ruling on Lawan and Emenalo’s application to quash the charges against them, the trial judge, Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi dismissed it as he held that the charges, as presently constituted, do not constitute an abuse of court process as claimed by the accused persons.
Justice Oniyangi held that the court has jurisdiction to hear the case as he held that the prosecution has established prima facie case from the proof of evidence placed before the court.
The court further held that Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPC) does not require the prosecution to attach witness statement to the proof of evidence. It added that it was a misconception on the part of the accused persons’ counsel to say that the prosecution needed to attach witness statement to the application to prefer charges against the accused.
Farouk and Emenalo were accused by ICPC of receiving the sum of $620,000 from a Lagos based oil magnate and businessman, Femi Otedola to influence the report of the committee in favour of Zenon Oil and Gas Limited.  They were subsequently arraigned on a seven-count charge in which they pleaded not guilty and were granted bail.
At the last adjourned date, counsel to the two accused persons, Ricky Tarfa (SAN) moved an application to quash the charges preferred against the accused persons.
Moving the application, Tarfa claimed that the court ought not to have granted the application for leave to prefer the charges because the prosecution failed to provide adequate materials necessary for the judge to grant the application.
He asked the court to discharge the accused persons since no prima facie case had been established against them, adding that the foundation of the case against them was not legally laid.
According to him, the prosecutor failed to comply with the provisions of section 185 (1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which required that statements of witnesses be attached to the application to prefer charges.
Opposing the application, the prosecutor, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the application, describing it as frivolous and a delay tactic to waste the time of the court, as well as an abuse of court process.
According to Awomolo, the Supreme Court had held in many cases that the purpose of seeking for leave of courts to prefer charges was to ensure that frivolous criminal charges were not filed, and not to allow the accused persons to see the details of the charges against them.
He therefore argued that the charges remained valid, adding that non-attachment of witnesses’ statements did not vitiate the legality of the charges.
Count one of the charge reads: “That you, Farouk Lawan (M) and Mr Emenalo Boniface (M) sometime in April 2012 or thereabouts in Abuja within the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) under the jurisdiction of this honourable court did, while acting in the course of your official duties as chairman and secretary (respectively) of House of Representatives ad-hoc committee on monitoring of fuel subsidy regime, conspire between yourselves and with each other to corruptly obtain the sum of $3,000,000  for yourselves from Mr Femi Otedola, chairman of Zenon Petroleum and Gas Ltd, as inducement to remove the name of Zenon Petroleum and Gas Ltd from the House of Representatives ad-hoc committee on monitoring of fuel subsidy regime’s report and did cause the House to remove the name of Zenon Petroleum and Gas Ltd from the said list and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 26(1)(c) of the Independent  Corrupt Practices and Other-Related Offences Act, 2000, and punishable under section 8(1) of the same Act.”
In count two, Lawan was accused of corruptly asking for $3,000,000 from Otedola with the intention of favouring him (Otedola) in the report of the ad-hoc committee, an offence punishable under section 8(1) of the same Act.
Lawan, in count three, was said to have corruptly agreed to accept the  $3,000,000, count four indicated that he obtained $500,000 from Otedola Otedola.   In the same vein, count five accused Emenalo of asking for $3,000,000 for himself from Otedola as a bribe, an offence punishable under section 8(1) of the ICPC 2000 Act.
The prosecution alleged in count six that Emenalo was offered bribe by Otedola but he failed to report the offer to any officer of the ICPC, an offence contrary to section 23(1) of the ICPC Act, 2000, and punishable under section 23(3) of the same 2000 ICPC Act.  In count seven, Emenalo was equally accused of receiving  $120,000 from Otedola.