A Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday, fixed June 20 to whether or not to grant bail to former Special Assistant on domestic affairs to ex president Goodluck Jonathan, Waripamowei Dudafa.
Dudafa is charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alongside Taiwo Ebenezer who is also known as Olugbenga Isaiah on 23 counts bordering on N5.1 billion fraud.
They were arraigned before Justice Mohammed Idris.
On
Wednesday, Justice Idris adjourned the case till June 20 for ruling on
the accused's bail application, after listening to arguments from
counsel.
When the case was called, counsel to the accused, Mr Gbenga Oyewole argued that his client was entitled to bail as provided by the 1999 Constitution.
Citing a plethora of authorities, the lawyer insisted that his client will attend court to defend the case if granted bail.
He
argued further that his client had stayed in custody of the EFCC for 60
days and prayed the court to be liberal in granting the bail.
Counsel to the second accused, Mr Sunday Abumere aligned himself with Oyewole’s submission.
However, the prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo vehemently opposed the application for bail on the grounds that the accused were most likely to evade trial if granted bail.
He
submitted that there were intelligence report to the effect that the
accused persons would jump bail if granted, and urged the court to
dismiss the application for bail.
Justice Idris fixed June 20 for ruling, while the accused are to remain in prison custody.
In
the charge, the EFCC alleged that the accused had between June 11,
2013, and June 2015, used different companies to commit the offences.
Some
of the companies allegedly used in committing the alleged offences
includes Seagate Property Development & Investment Ltd, Avalon
Global Property Development Company Ltd, Iwejuo Joseph Nna and Pluto
LUTO Property.
Others are Investment Company Ltd, Iwejuo Joseph Nna and Rotate Interlink Services Ltd.
The
accused were alleged to have concealed proceeds of a crime in the sum
of over N5 billion, contrary to the provisions of the money laundering
prohibition act, 2012.
The alleged offences are
said to be contrary to and punishable under sections 17(a), 18(c), and
27 (3) (c) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(Establishment) Act 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment