On Wednesday, May 15, 2024, Justice Jude Onwueguzie of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, FCT, sitting in Apo, Abuja, dismissed a preliminary objection raised by former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye, challenging the jurisdiction of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to prosecute him.
Agunloye is currently facing prosecution by the EFCC on seven counts related to alleged fraudulent activities concerning the Mambilla Power Project contract, amounting to $6 billion.
On February 8, 2024, Agunloye, represented by his counsel Adeola Adedipe (SAN), filed a motion disputing the authority of the EFCC to investigate and prosecute him, as well as questioning the court’s jurisdiction over his case.
In response, prosecution counsel Abba Muhammed submitted a counter affidavit on February 22, 2024, dismissing Agunloye’s motion as incompetent and contrary to the provisions of Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act.
In his ruling, delivered on Wednesday, Justice Onwueguzie dismissed Agunloye’s motion for lack of merit, citing Sections 6 and 7 of the EFCC Establishment Act, 2004, which grant the Commission the authority to investigate and prosecute acts of economic and financial crimes.
“On issues of whether the EFCC has the statutory power to investigate and prosecute before a court of competent jurisdiction, I have considered the application of the defence and the respondent, and I hold that the EFCC is charged with the investigation and prosecution of all economic and financial crimes including, contract scams, money laundering, advance fee fraud etc, including the investigation and enforcement of all economic and financial crimes laws, also cause investigation to weather an individual or company, or anybody is likely to commit any crime. Since the instant charges brought against the defendant are economic and financial crimes in nature, the motion brought by the defendant lacks merit and is hereby dismissed,” the judge ruled.
Regarding the legitimacy of the prosecution fiat the Commission obtained from the Office of the Auditor-General rather than that of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the judge held that any other state, authority or person was eligible to institute criminal prosecution in the absence of the AGF.
“Even if the charge has no seal of the Attorney-General of the Federation, that does not stop the potency of the charge, as the Attorney-General may decide on any member of his department he wishes to delegate his powers to carry out his duties by law,” he said.
He adjourned the matter till May 30, 2024 for continuation of trial.
Leave a Reply