Alleged N1.5b Contract Scam: Ex-NIMASA DG, Raymond Omatseye, Knows Fate January 26, 2015

Alleged N1.5b Contract Scam: Ex-NIMASA DG, Raymond Omatseye, Knows Fate January 26, 2015

The Federal High Court in Lagos will on January 26, 2015 decide whether or not to quash the 27-count charge of alleged contract scam preferred against former Director General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Raymond Omatseye.

The trial judge, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia fixed the date after counsels representing the prosecution and defence adopted their written submissions on a no case submission filed by Omatseye.

The former NIMASA boss, who was arraigned before the court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), was accused of been involved  in contract splitting and bid rigging estimated at over N1.5 billion.

He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

While adopting his client's application, Omatseye counsel, Olusina Sofola (SAN) urged the court to discharge and acquit him on all counts.

Sofola also argued that the charge against the accused person merely stated that he approved the award of contract in the sum of over N4 million, and so, contravened the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2007.

He argued that the law, however,  requires the prosecution to state what the valid monetary threshold was, at the time of the award of the contract by the accused.

"Since the counts in the charge refers to monetary threshold and not only threshold, then the court must look at the definition of monetary threshold and not threshold.

"We also invite the court to look again at section 16 (2) of the Public Procurement Act, which provides that the council shall consider, approve and amend the monetary threshold for the application of the provisions of this act, by procuring entities.

"The definition of monetary threshold states that it is the value limit in Naira set by the Bureau, outside of which an approving authority may not award a procurement contract.

"We urge the court to uphold our arguments, that the offence for which the accused is charged, is the award of the contract, not the approval of the actual process," he said

Sofola further submitted that exhibit PD 16Z (Public Procurement Act) was not a subsidiary legislation as at the time the contracts were awarded.

"Even though the accused had admitted that his threshold was N5 million for works, and N2.5 million for goods, the prosecution is duty bound to establish what the valid threshold was at the time of the award of the contract," he said

He therefore, submitted that the prosecution was duty bound to adduce evidence in support of the fact sought to be established, adding that the accused cannot be called upon to answer to an inconclusive prosecution.

He prayed the court to sustain his application for a no case submission, and discharge and acquit the accused.

In response, the EFCC counsel, Chief Godwin Obla (SAN), said that the accused had made submissions and conjectures not supported by the evidence on record before the court.

Obla submitted that it was too late in the day for the accused to raise an objection to the charge, since he never raised same when it was read to him.

"Assuming but not conceding that there is an error in the counts as contended, we submit that the alleged error if any, cannot render the counts invalid having regards to sections 166 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

"The accused who is a very well educated legal practitioner and represented by a team of formidable lawyers, never raised any objection when the charge was read to him.

"Upon being arraigned before this court, the accused pleaded not guilty to all counts; this presupposes that he understood the charge and was not mislead, "he said.

The lawyer also argued that in the light of the definition of the word threshold by the Act, it was preposterous for the accused to submit that the offence created under section 16 (1) relates to the award of contract.

"With profound respect to the accused, inserting the word "awarded" in the charge as he proposed, will amount to charging him with an offence not known to law.

"The testimonies of PW 1, 2, and 3 are all in agreement as to the stipulated threshold, and even the accused admitted this; so, facts that are admitted needs no further proof.

"I think the most important question is whether the accused has been linked to the charge, and I say yes, he has been sufficiently linked to the charge," he said

He therefore, argued that it was in the interest of the accused, for him to enter the witness box, and tell the court what he knows about the issue.

Obla further urgeded the court to uphold his submissions, and call on the accused to open his defence.

After listenning to the submissions of counsels, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia adjourned the case to Jan. 26, 2015 for ruling.

NAN recalls that Omatseye was  re-arraigned on January 21, 2013.

The prosecution had opened its case on February 4, 2013, by calling on its first witness, Mr Ibrahim Ahmed, an Investigating Police Officer with the EFCC.

On May 30, 2013, Obla called his second witness, Mr Mohammed Shehu, a former acting Director of Procurement in NIMASA.

The third witness is Mr Aminu Aliyu, a staff of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP).

The offence according to the anti-graft agency is contrary to the provisions of sections 58(4) (d) of the Public Procurement Act 2007 and the provisions of sections 14(a) of the money laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004.