Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday dismissed the new 50- count charge of money laundering brought against the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in Bayelsa State, Timipre Sylva and some others by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The judge while ruling on the preliminary objection filed by Sylva and two others, held that his court was without the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the charge, which he said was an abuse of court process.
Justice Ademola said since one of two similar charges earlier filed by the EFCC against Sylva and others had been dismissed and the other struck out, the EFCC’s decision to consolidate the earlier two charges in the new one showed desperation to convict the accused persons at all cost.
The EFCC filed the fresh 50-count charge on June 12 this year shortly after Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissed an earlier charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/167 which the commission filed against Sylva and others.
Also, Justice Evoh Chukwu of the same court struck out another charge filed against the ex-governor.
The new charge had Sylva, Francis Okokuro, Gbenga Balogun, Samuel Ogbuku, Marlin Maritime Limited, Eat Catering Services Limited and Haloween-Blue Construction and Logistics Limited as defendants.
They were accused of using the companies to launder about N19.2bn from Bayelsa State coffers between 2009 and 2012, under false pretences of using the withdrawn money to augment salaries of the state government.
Justice Ademola noted that since a judge of the court (Justice Mohammed) had dismissed a similar charge, the only option for the prosecution was to appeal the decisions rather than bringing a fresh charge containing the same facts and on the same issues before his court.
“The ruling of my brother Justice A. R. Mohammed dismissing the earlier charge still subsists. That ruling ended the jurisdiction of this court, until it is set aside by a superior court, this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this charge.
“It is the court’s opinion that this criminal charge is a complete abuse of the process of this court. It shows evidence of malice and desperation to perverse the process of court,” the judge ruled.
Follow Us