By Kalada Jumbo, Senior Legal Correspondent
This legal battle in the N10 billion money laundering case involving Ali Bello, the nephew of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, serves as an example of the complexity surrounding high-stakes money laundering cases in Nigeria, as it appears to be beset by jurisdictional problems and constitutional questions.
ABUJA, Nigeria — An important development occurred on Friday when the Federal High Court’s Abuja Division’s Honourable Justice James Omotosho denied a motion to strike out the amended 17-count charge in the N10 billion money laundering case involving Ali Bello, the nephew of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, and Dauda Suleiman. The court determined that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is entitled to modify the charges prior to the judgement day by rejecting the defense’s arguments.
Contentions and Ruling:
The defence, represented by Nureini Jimoh, had objected to the modified charges’ admissibility, claiming that doing so would be an abuse of the legal system. The defence also contested the Federal High Court’s Abuja Division’s jurisdiction, and as a result, they asked that the case be moved to Kogi State. Jimoh challenged the constitutional powers of the EFCC to investigate the revenue of the Kogi State Government, and contended that it lacked such.
In response, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, the Prosecution Counsel, countered the allegations, emphasizing that the offences were committed in Abuja, within the court’s jurisdiction. He pointed to the practical challenges of prosecuting the matter in Kogi State, citing the residency of the witnesses and the insecurity concerns.
However, in his ruling, Justice Omotosho dismissed the defence’s objections, stating that the prosecution had not concluded its case, making it, hence, premature to argue against the EFCC’s right to amend charges. He thereafter affirmed the EFCC’s authority to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption and money laundering, with reference to both its Establishment Act and the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011.
Implications and Future Proceedings:
The ruling paves the way for the defendants to take their pleas in the amended charge. Justice Omotosho promised an accelerated hearing of the case and acknowledged that insecurity could be a valid reason to try a criminal offence outside jurisdiction. As a result, the court postponed the case until March 14, 15, and 21, 2024, in order to continue the hearing.
This legal battle serves as an example of the complexity surrounding high-stakes money laundering cases in Nigeria, as it appears to be beset by jurisdictional problems and constitutional questions.
