Alleged N544 million Fraud: Court acquits Babachir Lawal

Salihu Ali, Abuja

0 476

A Federal Capital Territory High Court in Nigeria has acquitted a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Mr Babachir Lawal and five others from the N544M Contract Fraud offence brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The Court held that the anti-graft agency failed to establish a case against the former SGF and the co-defendants.

In a ruling on no case submission made by Babachir Lawal and others, Justice Charles Agbaza held that no ingredients of any offence was made out by the 11 witnesses that testified for the EFCC.

The Judge held that EFCC did not establish that Babachir Lawal was either a member of the Presidential Initiative for North East PINE that awarded the contract or a member of the Ministerial Tenders Board that vetted and gave approval to the disputed contract.

Besides, Justice Agbaza held that EFCC also failed to link Babachir Lawal with the Bureau of Public Procurement BPP which issued a certificate of no objection to the contract before it was awarded.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC had on Monday, November 30, 2020 re-arraigned the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal before Justice Agbaza.

Babachir Lawal alongside his younger brother, Hamidu Lawal, Suleiman Abubakar, Apeh Monday and two companies, Rholavision Engineering Limited and Josmon Technologies Limited were prosecuted by the EFCC before Justice Charles Agbaza.

They faced a 10-count charge bordering on fraud relating to the removal of evasive plant species to the tune of N544 million for which they pleaded not guilty.

EFCC To Appeal

According to the Spokesperson of the EFCC, Mr Wilson Uwujaren, the agency will appeal the ruling of Justice Charles Agbaza of the Federal Capital Territory Higher Court Abuja, which dismissed the 10-count charge of corruption brought against the former SGF.

EFCC will obtain a copy of the judgment for urgent review and challenge its validity at the appellate court.”

 

PIAK

 

 

 

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.