26th November, 2012
Henry Ojelu& Olamide Abdul
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) today re-arraigned Mamman Ali, son of former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chairman, Ahmadu Ali on an amended charge of N4.4 billion fuel subsidy fraud
Ali was arraigned before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo of a Lagos State High Court in Ikeja on a 13-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, forgery, uttering and use of forged documents.
He was arraigned alongside Christian Taylor, Oluwaseun Ogunbambo and Nassaman Oil Services Ltd.
EFCC counsel, Mr Francis Usani alleged that the defendants had fraudulently obtained N4.4 billion from the Federal Government between Jan. and April 2012.
Usani said they obtained the money as subsidy payments from the Petroleum Support Fund for the purported importation of 30.5million litres of Premium Motor Spirits (PMS).
The defendants were also alleged to have forged a Bill of lading and other documents which they used in facilitating the fraud.
Usani said their alleged offences contravened Sections 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act of 2006.
According to him, it also contravened Sections 467 and 468 of the Criminal Code Laws of Lagos State 2003.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The judge ordered that Ali and Taylor should continue to enjoy the N20 million bail granted to each of them by the court on 26 July, 2012 when they were first arraigned for the alleged offences.
Onigbanjo,however fixed 28 November for ruling on the bail application filed by Ogunbambo’s counsel, Mr Adebayo Adenipekun
In a related case, the EFCC told a Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Olusumbo Goodluck that it has enough evidence to dock the trio of Helyn Aninye, Chizobam Ben-Okafor and Pon-Specialized Services Limited for offences bordering on forgery and obtaining money under false pretence.
The trio were to have been docked on an 18 (eighteen) count criminal charge on November 26 but their pleas could not be taken as their counsel, Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, opposed their arraignment on the grounds that the proof of evidence did not disclose a prima facie case against his clients.
“My lord, assuming there are offences to be disclosed, they have not in any way been linked to the applicants, and these links must have a prima facie elements to the applicants,” he said.
He further said that in a case of forgery, it is required to be proved in a particular way and that no maker of the alleged forged document had been called or identified.
But Steve Odiase, counsel to EFCC in his application for leave to prefer criminal charge against the accused persons under Section 185 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, noted that the proof of evidence speaks for itself.
He stated that the prosecution has formulated three issues for determination by the court in granting the application which include whether the proof of evidence discloses an offence known to law and whether there is a linking of the charge to the applicants.
“My lord, the statement of one (name withheld) of Quality Marine Services limited is enough link to the accused persons. Besides, it has been established that in a case of forgery the accused must not be the maker of the said document before being liable.” Odiase said.
The judge who advised counsel not to jump the gun by addressing issues in the substantive case, adjourned to February 21, 2013 for ruling on both applications.
The accused persons were said to have on or about the 3rd day of March,2011 at Abuja within the Jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja with intent to defraud, conspired to obtain N1.413,507,951.50 ( One Billion, Four Hundred and Thirteen Million, Five Hundred and Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty One Naira and Fifty Kobo) under false pretence from the Federal Government of Nigeria as subsidy for the importation Premium Motor Spirit under the Petroleum Support Fund.
The offence according to the charge sheet was contrary to Section 8(a) and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act. 2006.