18th December, 2012
Justice Call Garba of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, on December 7, 2012, sentenced Fidelis Teseer Tule, who was prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to two years imprisonment for impersonation and obtaining money by false pretence.
Tule was arrested following an intelligence report that he was parading himself as a Senior Crime Officer with the EFCC and defrauded unsuspecting Nigerians through a bogus claim that he could secure job placements for them with the anti-graft agency.
Among his victims were Ekundayo Theophilus, Gbaanongon Victor Tyosoo and Ogodi Linus.
The fraudster, who operated within the judicial division of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, used a false identity card titled “Economy Fund Crime Commission” and bearing Mr. Fidelis T. Tule with ID card No: SCO/236/008 to hoodwink his victims.
He was arrested and subsequently arraigned on an 8 count charge on November 10, 2011 for committing the offence which is contrary to Section 363 of the Penal Code Law Cap 532 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria ( Nigeria ) 1990 and punishable under Section 364 of the same Law.
One of the charge reads, “That you Fidelis Teseer Tule, sometime in October 2011, in Abuja within the Judicial Division of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, did with intent to defraud obtained the total sum of N21, 400.00 (Twenty One Thousand, Four Hundred Naira) from one Gbaanongon Victor Tyosoo by false pretence purporting same to be for employment into Economic and Financial Crimes Commission which you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and punishable under section 1 (3) of the same Act”.
During trial, the false document titled “Economy Fund Crime Commission Identity Card” was admitted in evidence as Exhibit A by Justice Garba who in his ruling said that “from the totality of evidence adduced, I hold the considered view that the document or writing marked Exhibit A is a forged document as confirmed by Exhibit D. The defendant knew that the document is forged as he confirmed that he made Exhibit A and that he is not a staff of the EFCC”.
“In conclusion and by the overwhelming and uncontradicted oral and documentary evidence as presented by the prosecution, the prosecution has proved the offences as charged against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 135 of Evidence Act 2011 (as amended)”, Justice Garba said.
He therefore sentenced the accused to two years imprisonment.