CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

UDE JONES UDEOGU APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Upon an amendment of an earlier charge, the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein were arraigned before the Federal High Court, Abuja,  on account of  a petition sent to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC), by some indigenes of Abia State  against the 2nd Respondent. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commissions investigation revealed that the 2nd Respondent as the Executive Governor of Abia State, withdrew billions of Naira belonging to Abia State Government, and converted them in various bank drafts which were subsequently lodged into the 3rd Respondent’s, Slok Nigeria Limited account with the Inland Bank (now First City Monument Bank). Further allegations revealed that the Government contracts were awarded to companies such as Zerock Construction Ltd; Hitec Construction Ltd; Hapel Nigeria Ltd., in which the 2nd Respondent had cronies, agents and associates and some of the drafts lodged into the accounts of the 2nd Respondent came in form of gratifications in appreciation for the contracts awarded by the 2nd Respondents on behalf of the Abia State Government, hence this action at the Federal High Court, Lagos at the instance of the 1st Respondent. The Appellant and the 3rd Respondent filed a joint application, wherein they sought for an order quashing the charges preferred against them. The trial court in a considered ruling dismissed the application. The Appellant and the 3rd Respondent not satisfied with the decision appealed against same to the Court of Appeal which consolidated it with Appeal No: CA/A/2244/2009 filed by the 3rd Respondent. The lower court dismissed the consolidated appeals hence a further appeal to the apex court at the instance of the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial court that the proof of evidence disclosed prima facie evidence in this matter against the Appellant?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Appellant’s objection that counts 98 – 112 of the charges are defective (sic) have been waived being a procedural objection and the aforesaid counts are not fundamentally defective?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

“PRIMA FACIE CASE” –MEANING OF “PRIMA FACIE CASE”

---

“I had found that the term “prima facie case” only means that there is ground for proceeding. It is not the same as proof which comes later when the court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not. See Ajidagba VS. I G P (1958) SC NLR 60; Shersingh V Jitend-Dranthen (1931) 1 LR 59. Calcutta 275. It is sufficient once it is shown that there are facts which reveal commission of a crime and show that the accused person is linked with the same. See Abacha V State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 at 495, where this court quoted the dictum of D.0 COKER JSC with approval in Ikomi V The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 28) 340 at 376 where it was stated as follows:-
“At the stage of deciding whether to proffer charge the persecution is not obliged to decide as a trial Judge should whether, the available evidence is cogent enough to justify a conviction.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C

---

OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING – SECTION 14(1) (A) OF THE MONEY LAUNDERING (PROHIBITION) ACT

---

“Section 14(1) (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act under which the Appellant and 2nd and 3rd Respondents were charged in counts 17-44 provides and follows:-“14. (1) Any person who-
converts, or transfer resources or properties derived directly or indirectly from illicit traffic in drugs and psychotropic substances or any other crime or illegal act, with the aim of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the resources or properties or aiding any person involved in the illicit traffic in narcotic drug or psychotropic substances or any other crime or illegal act to avoid the illegal consequences of his action.
Commits an offence under this section and it liable on conviction to a term of not less than 2 years or more than 3 years.” – PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C

---

OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING – INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING.

---

“The ingredients of the foregoing Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act and as rightly submitted by ROTIMI JACOBS, SAN of counsel to the 1st Respondent (EFCC) are that:-
(i) The accused converted or transferred resources or property;
(ii) The resources or property must have been derived directly or indirectly from drugs related offences or any other crimes or illegal acts:
(iii) The conversion or transfer of the resources must be with aim:
(A) Concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the resources or property; or
(b) Aiding any person involved in any of the acts of drug related offences or any other crime or illegal act so as to evade the illegal consequences of his action.”
– PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---