play_arrow

keyboard_arrow_right

Listeners:

Top listeners:

skip_previous skip_next
00:00 00:00
playlist_play chevron_left
volume_up
Go to album
  • cover play_arrow

    LISTEN NOW: JafriQ Radio Live On Jafriq Radio

Entertainment

Nigeria: Why We Dropped Money Laundering Charges Against Bobrisky – EFCC

todayOctober 1, 2024 1

Background
share close

[ad_1]

Bobrisky had alleged in a viral video that he offered N15 million as a bribe to some unnamed EFCC officers to drop money laundering charges against him.

On Monday, Bilikisu Bala, an EFCC prosecutor, reportedly told a Joint Committee of the House of Representatives that charges of money laundering dropped in the trial of Idris Okuneye (a.k.a. Bobrisky) were lawful and in compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA).

The committee is investigating corruption allegations against some EFCC and Nigeria Correctional Service officers. Other parties summoned include the Comptroller of Corrections Lagos Command, Ben Freedman; the Secretary of the board, Ja’afaru Ahmed, and the Deputy Comptrollers of Corrections in charge of medium and maximum security, Siriku Adekunle and Michael Anugwa.

Bobrisky had alleged in a leaked viral audio posted by social media influencer VDM (born Martins Otse) that he offered N15 million as a bribe to some unnamed EFCC officers to drop money laundering charges against him.

Premium Times reported in April that Bobrisky was arrested for money laundering and Naira mutilation. During his trial at the Federal High Court in Lagos, the judge, Abimbola Awogboro, dismissed the money laundering charges (counts five and six) but sentenced Bobrisky to six months in prison for Naira abuse.

In a letter on Friday, the committee summoned the EFCC chairperson and the Comptroller General of the Nigeria Correctional Service to appear on Monday with all officers involved in the allegation.

Bobrisky, the case’s central figure, was conspicuously absent from the hearing. His lawyer appeared on his behalf, claiming his client’s absence was due to illness. The lawmakers, in response, asked why Bobrisky’s lawyer didn’t bring a ‘sick letter’ to prove that Bobrisky was indeed ill.

Money laundering charges

According to a statement issued by the EFCC, Ms Bala, head of the prosecution team that handled Bobrisky’s trial, told the committee that the charges were dropped based on the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML’s) disclosure that Okuneye’s firm, Bob Express, was not a Designated Non Financial Institution, Business and Profession, (DSNFIBP), and could not be prosecuted for flouting provisions of the Money Laundering Prevention & Prohibition Act, 2022.

“We initially raised six count charges bordering on Naira Abuse and Money Laundering against Okuneye based on his confessional statement that his firm, Bob Express, was not registered with SCUML and was not rendering returns to it. Counts 1-4 were on Naira Abuse, while counts five and six were on money laundering.

“Okuneye’s confession that he didn’t register his firm, Bob Express, with SCUML and did not render returns to it informed the money laundering charges initially included in the six-count charges. However, when we wrote to SCUML on the firm’s status, the Unit responded that it was not a Designated Non-Financial Institution, Business and Profession. We cannot lawfully sustain the charges in all sincerity. We, therefore, dropped them and relied on the four counts of Naira mutilation to which Okuneye had pleaded guilty”, she said

Zero financial inducement

The prosecutor dismissed claims of financial inducement against EFCC officials maintaining that no such thing had happened.

“There is simply no basis for that. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA) allows the amendment of charges. It is a professional practice. It is laughable for anyone to attribute our decision to monetary issues. Why did we write to SCUML if we didn’t want to include the charges? We wrote to be lawfully guided, and when the Unit responded that the firm had not breached any law, what basis should we have retained the money laundering charges?”