N1.9b Fuel Subsidy Scam: Appeal Court reserves Judgment In Oil Marketers' Case

N1.9b Fuel Subsidy Scam: Appeal Court reserves Judgment In  Wagbatsoma's Case

The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday reserved judgment in an appeal filed by an oil marketer, Walter Wagbatsoma and two others, challenging the refusal of a Lagos High Court to quashing a N1.9 billion fuel subsidy fraud charge filed against them.

Wagbatsoma, Adaoha Ugo-Ngadi and their company and Ontario Oil & Gas Nigeria Limited had challenged the jurisdiction and competence of the lower court presided over by Justice Lateefat Okunnu to hear the case brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

But Justice Okunnu had on October 10, 2014, dismissed their different applications holding that “it is the nature of the offense that determines the jurisdiction of the court and the charges here are matters that can be tried in the High Court. 

The appellants are alleged to have fraudulently obtaining the sum of N1, 959,377,542.06 from the Petroleum Support Fund for a purported importation of 39.2million litres of Premium Motor Spirit.

They were arraigned before the court by the EFCC on a nine count charge of altering, forgery, conspiracy and obtaining property by false pretences.

The appellate court presided over by Justice Amina Augie adjourned the appeal for judgement on Tuesday after taking arguments from the lead counsel for the appellant, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and that of EFCC, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) respectively.

At the hearing of the appeal, Olanipekun, who led two other SAN, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan and J.A. Badejo askeded the appellate court to allow the appeal and set aside the ruling of the High Court.

According to the lawyer, the information on the charge sheet revealed that the alleged offences were based on importation of fuel into the country stressing that only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

But in his own argument, EFCC counsel, Jacobs urged the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgement of the lower court that says the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to try the matter.

Justice Okunnu had in her judgement held that, When it comes to trial of criminal cases, the line between federal and state is necessarily blurred. Section 251 (3) has not robbed the High Court of jurisdiction in this matter, this case is not an admiralty case but a pure criminal matter. Therefore, it is not the pieces of peripheral evidence before the court that determines jurisdiction, but the nature of the law that has been infringed.”

The judge also threw out the appellants’ no-case submission on the grounds that enough evidence has been presented to the court by the prosecution, to warrant at least an explanation and answers by the defendants.

According to Justice Okunnu, “it is only when there is nothing linking the accused to the crime committed that it becomes unfair to put the accused through the trial. 

"The question now is, has enough been said to warrant at least an explanation by each defendant? Enough has been said to warrant explanations and answers by the defendants,” she held.