Appeal Court frees Erastus Akingbola of N47.5billion theft charge

According to a report by PM News , a Court of
Appeal sitting in Lagos has quashed the 22-count
charge brought against the former Managing
Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr. Erastus
Akingbola by the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC). The EFCC had alleged that
Akingbola stole N47.5 billion belonging to the
bank. The report below...
Ruling on Akingbola’s application on
jurisdiction, the court presided over by
Justice Amina Augie held that the High Court
of Lagos State presided over by Justice
Lateef Lawal-Akapo lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the suit filed against him by the
commission
Justice Augie said it amounted to miscarriage of
justice for the lower court to have dismissed
Akingbola’s application challenging its jurisdiction
on the matter.
“The appeal is meritorious and allowed,” she
declared.
“I am convinced that the lower court refused to
align itself with the decision of this court in
Nwosu’s case,” she further held.
Akingbola and his co-defendant, Bayo Dada, had
filed two separate applications challenging the
jurisdiction of the court to hear the 22-count
charge filed against them by the EFCC.
But, the lower court, in its ruling on 2 May, 2014
dismissed their applications.
Justice Lawal-Akapo had then held that the
charges preferred against the defendants were
within its competence and jurisdiction to
determine.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the high court,
Akingbola and Dada approached the Appeal Court,
praying that the trial court’s decision be set
aside.
Delievering the judgement, Justice Augie declared
that the lower court fell into serious error by not
abiding by the decision on Nwosu’s case adding,
“it is most unfair and is an injustice”.
According to her, the lower court has no option
than to follow the decision of the higher court on
Nwosu’s case.
“The point must be made that the decision of this
court in Nwosu’s case was based on proof of
evidence.”
The judge noted that all the charges against the
defendants arose out of capital market
transactions.
“Only federal high court is conferred with the
exclusive jurisdiction to try cases of capital
market transaction,” she stressed.
The appellate court held that the lower court owes
it a duty to compare and contrast the documents
cited by parties.
“It is its duty to examine materials brought before
him. It is the role of the judge to do justice in
adjudicating all the cases brought before him.
“One sided justice would amount to injustice and
favouring one side.
“The proof of evidence was there but the trial
judge at the lower court accused the defendants of
not furnishing him with the documents.
“He has failed in his duty.”
Justice Augie further held that the appeal filed by
the defendants has nothing to do with evidence,
noting that the lower court failed to go through
argument canvassed before it assumed
jurisdiction on the matter.
She emphasised that the issue of jurisdiction
should not have been toyed with by the lower
court.
“I agree with the appellant that the lower court
ought to have gone through the proof of evidence.
“There is no way a charge of stealing can stand
without going through the proof of evidence,” she
declared.
Culled from PM News