The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has approached the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, to challenge the acquittal of a former Executive Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission, Touyo Omatsuli, and three others over an alleged N3.645bn money laundering scheme.
Also listed as respondents in the appeal are Don Parker Properties Limited, Francis Momoh, and Building Associates Limited.
The anti-graft agency, represented by a team of lawyers led by E.E. Iheanacho (SAN), is seeking to overturn the judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos, presided over by Justice Daniel Osiagor, which discharged and acquitted the defendants on all 46 counts.
The charges bordered on alleged money laundering, conspiracy, and failure to comply with statutory reporting obligations.
In its notice of appeal, the commission argued that the trial court erred in law by failing to properly evaluate the evidence presented during the proceedings, including testimonies from 16 witnesses and several documentary exhibits.
The EFCC contended that the lower court disregarded earlier rulings of the Court of Appeal on interlocutory matters in the case, particularly on the issue of no-case submissions, where it held that a prima facie case had been established against the defendants.
According to the commission, the trial judge wrongly held that there was no evidence linking the respondents to the alleged offences, despite prior appellate findings affirming the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The agency further argued that the trial court misinterpreted the nature of the funds traced to the first respondent, insisting that the N3.645bn paid by a contractor constituted unlawful gratification rather than legitimate transactions.
It alleged that the funds were paid as inducement to members of the NDDC board and subsequently laundered through proxies and corporate entities.
The EFCC claimed that the money was channelled through accounts linked to Building Associates Limited and other entities before being used to acquire high-value properties in a bid to conceal its origin.
The commission also alleged a coordinated scheme among the respondents, noting that accounts were nominated for the receipt of funds, while others facilitated transfers and conversions, including the conversion of some sums into foreign currency.
It further accused the respondents of engaging in cover-up actions after investigations commenced, including restructuring company ownership, relinquishing shares, and generating backdated documents to justify the transactions.
The EFCC faulted the trial court for relying on selected portions of cross-examination while allegedly ignoring the totality of the prosecution’s case, maintaining that there were no material contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses.
It also argued that the court failed to properly interpret relevant anti-corruption laws, including provisions that prohibit public officers from receiving benefits connected to their official duties.
On the issue of criminal intent, the commission maintained that the trial court adopted a narrow approach by insisting on direct proof of knowledge, noting that under the law, such knowledge could be inferred from surrounding circumstances and patterns of conduct.
The EFCC further challenged the finding that conspiracy was not established, arguing that coordinated actions and financial records sufficiently demonstrated a common unlawful design among the respondents.
It added that the companies involved qualified as Designated Non-Financial Institutions under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and were therefore required to report suspicious transactions, an obligation it said was breached.
The commission is urging the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the lower court, uphold its appeal, and enter convictions against the respondents, alongside any other orders deemed appropriate in the circumstances.
