N4.7b Money Laundering Charge: EFCC Asks Court To Compel Babalakin, Others To Take Plea

N4.7b Money Laundering Charge: EFCC Asks Court To Compel Babalakin, Others To Take Plea

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday urged a Federal High Court sitting in Ikeja to order the chairman of Bi-Courtney Limited, Dr Wale Babalakin and his co-defendants to enter their plea in a 27-count-charge of money laundering file again them by the commission.

The EFCC made this demand while opposing an application filed by Babalakin and his companies, challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the competency of the charge brought 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.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Tuesday, the counsel to the anti-graft agency, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) continue his argument from where he stopped on Monday, submitting that the power of the commission to prosecute is backed by the constitution.

The lawyer also told Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo 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.

Earlier, one of the lawyers to Babalakin, Wale Akoni (SAN), had argued that Section 98 of the Criminal Code of Lagos State, 2003, under which Babalakin and others were charged, dealt with only public officers. Noting that Ibori on whose behalf the defendants allegedly transferred the N4.7bn, was not defined by the law as as a public officer.

"For a valid charge to be brought under Section 98(a), there must be disclosed the existence of a public officer on the account of whose action or inaction or omission this property was corruptly conferred. "My Lord, it is our submission that there is no pubic officer disclosed on the face of the charge on account of whose action any benefit was conferred."

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 EFCC Act.

They noted 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 argued 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 informed the defendant the details of the offence, neither did they constitute an offence under any written law in the country.

Lawal-Akapo adjourned the matter till November 27 to hear more argument from the lawyers on the application.