The Federal Government has filed a notice of appeal to challenge the July 24 judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which freed a former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Olufemi Thomas, on allegations of money laundering.
It listed 11 grounds of appeal against the decision of Justice Olayinka Faji of the Federal High Court.
In his judgment, Justice Faji discharged and acquitted Thomas on five out of six counts filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), ruling that the agency failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Faji held that the EFCC admitted during trial that it did not investigate several claims made by the defendant, and as such did not establish unlawful enrichment against him.
The court also ruled that the funds seized by the EFCC from Thomas must be returned to him within 14 days, subject to payment of the ₦10m fine.
The fine was imposed after the court found Thomas guilty on count five, which involved making a cash payment exceeding the ₦5m threshold allowed by law.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the EFCC’s counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ekele Iheanacho, submitted that the trial judge erred in law and relied on “imaginary and fanciful doubt” when it decided that the commission did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations against the respondent in counts, 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the amended charge.
The EFCC said it proved that the respondent laundered the significant increment in his income as a former public officer, for which he did not reasonably give an explanation to as there was both documentary and oral evidence adduced by the respondent in explaining the huge increment in the sources of his income, which were contradictory and inconsistent.
The commission insisted that it comprehensively investigated all the sources of income of the respondent, both from the government as a former public official and from its private businesses and investments.
“At the close of the prosecution’s case, both the learned trial judge and this Honourable Court found that the Appellant established a prima facie case requiring the Respondent to enter his defence and offer explanation as to the source of the sum of sum of $2,198, 000.00 (Two Million, One Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand Dollars.
“By Section 19(5) of the Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment) Act if an accused person has pecuniary resources or property which is disproportionate to his known source of income, or he obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property, the burden of giving a satisfactory account of how he made the money or obtained the accretion shifts to him.
“An explanation by an accused person must be shown to be reasonable before it the burden on an accused person could be said to be discharged.”
The EFCC argued that contrary to the judgment of the lower court, “the lower court was entitled to forfeit the proceeds of crime and instrumentality of crime.
“The learned trial judge ignored the unchallenged evidence that there were neither taxes paid by the Respondent’s farm nor did the Respondent pay any income taxes aside from his income from public office.
“The respondent is not entitled to reap the benefit of his illegality in any manner whatsoever.
“The lower court failed to properly exercise its discretion in refusing to forfeit the funds to the Federal Government of Nigeria, considering the circumstances of this case.”
The anti-graft agency, therefore, asked the appellate court to set aside part of the decision of the trial court and give an order forfeiting the sum of $2,198,000.00.
