The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed a comprehensive appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, challenging the acquittal of former Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Executive Director, Engr. Touyo Omatsuli, and three others over an alleged ₦3.645 billion money laundering scheme.
Also listed as respondents in the appeal are Don Parker Properties Limited, Francis Momoh, and Building Associates Limited.
The appellant, EFCC, is represented by a team of counsel led by E.E. Iheanacho, SAN, alongside Bilikisu Bala Buhari, Esq., Emenike Mgbenmele, Esq., O.S. Ujam, Esq., Famen Anum, Esq., M.A. Babatunde, Esq., and Lydia Ebenezer, Esq.
The appeal follows 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 contained in an amended charge bordering on money laundering, conspiracy, and failure to comply with statutory reporting obligations.
In its Notice of Appeal, the EFCC contended that the trial court erred in law and failed to properly evaluate the extensive evidence presented during the trial, including the testimonies of 16 witnesses and several documentary exhibits.
The anti-graft agency argued that the lower court disregarded binding decisions of the Court of Appeal delivered in earlier interlocutory rulings arising from the same case, particularly on the issue of a no-case submission, where the appellate court had held that a prima facie case had been established against the defendants.
According to the EFCC, the trial judge wrongly concluded that there was no evidence linking the respondents to the alleged offences, despite prior appellate findings affirming the credibility and sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.
The Commission further maintained that the trial court mischaracterised the nature of the funds traced to the first respondent, insisting that the sum of ₦3.645 billion paid by a contractor, identified as PW4, constituted unlawful gratification rather than legitimate transactions.
The EFCC argued that the evidence before the court showed that the funds were paid as “appreciation” to members of the NDDC board and were subsequently laundered through proxies and corporate entities.
It stated that the payments were funnelled through Building Associates Limited and other accounts before being used to acquire high-value properties, thereby disguising their origin.
In challenging the judgment, the Commission outlined what it described as a coordinated laundering scheme involving the respondents.
It alleged that the first respondent nominated accounts for the receipt of the funds, while the third and fourth respondents facilitated transfers and conversions.
The funds were said to have been used to acquire properties in the names of corporate entities, with some transactions converted into foreign currency to conceal their origin.
The EFCC also claimed that the respondents engaged in cover-up actions after investigations commenced, including restructuring company ownership, relinquishing shares, and creating backdated documents to justify the transactions.
The Commission faulted the trial court for relying heavily on selected portions of cross-examination while ignoring the totality of the prosecution’s case.
It argued that there were no material contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including PW1 and PW4, and that their evidence was corroborated by documentary exhibits.
The EFCC further maintained that the lower court failed to properly interpret anti-corruption laws, including provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, which prohibit public officers from receiving benefits linked to official duties.
On the issue of criminal intent, the EFCC argued that the trial court adopted an unduly narrow approach by insisting on direct proof of knowledge.
It maintained that, under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, knowledge can be inferred from surrounding circumstances and patterns of conduct.
According to the Commission, evidence of unusual financial flows, absence of legitimate business relationships, and subsequent concealment efforts clearly established that the respondents knew or ought to have known that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity.
The EFCC also challenged the trial court’s finding that conspiracy was not proved, arguing that the law does not require direct evidence of an agreement.
It submitted that the coordinated actions of the respondents, as revealed through witness testimonies and financial records, were sufficient to infer a common unlawful design.
The Commission further insisted that the companies involved qualified as Designated Non-Financial Institutions under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and were therefore obligated to report suspicious transactions—obligations which it said were breached.
The EFCC is urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in its entirety, allow the appeal, and enter a conviction against the respondents.
It also asked the appellate court to make any further orders deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
