Alleged N4.7bn Fraud: Babalakin, Others Know Fate January 19, 2015

Alleged N4.7bn Fraud: Babalakin, Others Know Fate January 19, 2015 

Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo of the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja will on January 19, 2015 decide whether or not to quash the N4.7 billion fraud charge filed against the Chairman of Bi-courtney Limited, Wale Babalakin (SAN) and four other.

Justice Lawal-Akapo fixed the date on Thursday after both the prosecution and defence lawyers concluded their argued on an application filed by Babalakin and his companies, challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the competency of the charge against them.

Babalakin (SAN), Stabilini Vision Limited, Bi-Courtney Limited, Alex Okoh, and his company Renix Nigeria Limited are standing trial before justice Lawal-Akapo on an alleged N4.7 billion fraud brought against them by the commission .

The EFCC alleged that Babalakin and his co-defendants fraudulently assisted convicted former Delta State Governor, James Ibori to transfer huge sums of money through various parties to Erin Aviation account in Mauritius for the purchase of a plane.

The 27 count charge borders on conspiracy, retention of proceeds of criminal conduct and corruptly conferring benefit on account of public action. 

But the defendants through their lawyers, instituted separate applications, praying the court to quash the N4.7bn charges, with a position that the EFCC, as a federal agency, lacked valid fiat to prosecute them in a state high court.

The defendants through their counsel, Dr. Biodun Layonu (SAN), Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), Roland Otaru (SAN), Dr. Joseph Nwobike (SAN) and Oladapo Adeosun had also argued that the state High Court has no jurisdiction to hear offences brought under the EFCC Act.

The lawyers further submitted that all the charges against the defendant were predicated on repealed laws of Lagos State and urged the court to quash the charges.

They also submittd that the defendants were not properly informed of the details they were charged for as stated in the Constitution, adding that count 2 to 13 of the charge did not inform the defendant the details of the offence, neither did they constitute an offence under any written law in the country.

But counsel to the anti-graft agency, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the power of the commission to prosecute is backed by the constitution.

The lawyer also submitted  that it is trite law that the schedule to the Constitution is part of the Constitution; it has the same force, it has the same competence and same strength as the Constitution itself."

Jacobs further argued that Ibori, in the capacity of a governor was a public officer. He said that though the Constitution did not capture a governor as a public officer, the schedule to the Constitution did.

He submitted that the schedule was as competent as the Constitution and that the charges were sustainable.

The lawyer stated, "I agree with my learned friend, Wale Akoni (SAN) that a public officer is not defined within the Constitution from Sections 1 to 318; but the definition is in the Constitution; the word public official is defined in the schedule to the Constitution in Article 19 part one of the 5th schedule. Indeed, item four of part two of the 5th schedule mentioned the governor of a state as a public officer.