N47.1b Fraud: Appeal Court Strikes Out Charge Against Ex-Intercontinental Bank MD, Akingbola

N47.1b Fraud: Appeal Court Strikes Out Charge Against Ex-Intercontinental Bank MD, Akingbola

The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal on Wednesday struck out the N47.1 billion theft charge brought against the former Managing Director of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr Erastus Akingbola by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The court in a unanimous decision held that the Lagos State High Court where Akingbola and one of his associate, Bayo Dada are currently standing trial lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the trial

Specifically the appellate court held that the subject matter of the alleged offences relates to banking operations and operations of capital issues which fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

The court came to this conclusion while ruling on an appeal filed by Akingbola and Dada, challenging  the ruling of Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo of the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja, in which the lower court assumed jurisdiction over the matter.

The two former bank chiefs had through their lawyers Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Professor Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) filed two separate applications, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the 22-count charge filed against them by the EFCC.

But, Justice Lawal-Akapo in his ruling delivered on May 2, 2014 dismissed the applications, holding that the charges preferred against defendants were within its competence and purview to determine.

The judge also agreed with the EFCC that the charge is not related to banking transactions but stealing, receiving stolen property and advance fee Fraud.

The judge also distinguished the matter from the one in which the Court of Appeal quashed the charges instituted against a former Managing Director of Finbank Plc Okey Nwosu.

The court held that, “The offences canvassed in Okey Nwosu case, cited by the defendants, had its roots in capital market. In the present case, the offences charged are stealing, receiving stolen property and advance fee fraud.

“Thus, I hold are the charges are within the confine of the state High Court.”

Dissatisfied, the two men had filed two separate appeals against the ruling and urged the Appeal  Court to set it aside.

The appellate court in its lead judgement delivered by Justice Amina Aguie (presiding) adopted by other members of the panel; Justice Samuel Oseji and Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo held that the lower court judge took a narrow view of the matter when he assumed jurisdiction on the matter.

Justice Aguie held that the lower court judge fell into a serious error when he failed to abide by the decision of the appellate court on the case of Okey Nwosu vs. EFCC even when it was brought to his notice.

Justice Aguie also stated that the appellate court had in Okey Nwosu’s case held that the State High Court where the charges were instituted against the defendants, had no jurisdiction over capital market-related issues.

The upper court further held that the refusal of the lower court to follow the principle of Stare decisis is tantamount to judicial rascality and a call for anarchy adding ‘’ it will encourage the lower court to take-up arms against the appellate court’’.

Justice Aguie pointed out that the subject matter of the alleged offences related to banking operations and capital market issues which is outside the purview of the Lagos High Court.

She also held the lower court failed in its duty as an unbiased umpire when it refused to study thoroughly the processes presented before it.

Justice Aguie added that the lower court turned a blind-eye to the prove of evidence brought before it before delivering its ruling saying ‘’it is the duty of the court is to do substantial justice, a one-sided justice is no justice at all’.

Akingbola’s counsel, Chief Olanipekun (SAN) had in his submission urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the lower court.

He had argued that the trial judge erred in law in his assumption of jurisdiction over the charge filed before him in the face of the clear provision of Section 251 of the Constitution and Section 8(1) of the Federal High Court Act.

He submitted that Section 251 of the Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court over the subject matter stressing that Section 272(1) of the Constitution which provides for jurisdiction of the State high court is subject to Section 251.

He further submitted that the lower court erred in law and came to a perverse decision in its interpretation and application of the word ‘’also’’ used in section 251(3) of the constitution.

He told the court that there is a similar charge involving Akingbola and the EFCC which is currently pending before the Federal High Court, Lagos.

He also argued that the main witnesses listed in the proof of evidence at the Federal High Court are the same witnesses also listed in the proof of evidence before this court.

Besides, Olanipekun argued that g to him, the subject matter of the alleged offences relates to banking operations and operations of capital issues which fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

However, the EFCC counsel, Chief Godwin Obla (SAN), had urged the court to dismiss the application because charge against the defendants borders on stealing which is within the jurisdiction of the court.