N11.5b Fraud: Akala, Sen. Hosea Agboola & Co, have case to answer, says Judge

Justice Akintunde Boade of the Oyo State High Court, on December 12, 2012, ruled that the former Oyo State Governor, Adebayo Alao-Akala and two others who are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC of N11.5 billion fraud, have a case to answer.

Two others who are being prosecuted on an 11-count charge of conspiracy, illegal award of contracts, obtaining by false pretence, acquiring property with money derived from illegal act and concealing the ownership of such property, are former Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, Chief Hosea Agboola, now a Senator and a businessman, Mr. Femi Babalola.

The defendants' counsel, led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), had filed a preliminary objection to the charges, praying the court to quash them on grounds that the EFCC lacked evidence to back the allegations. While questioning the jurisdiction of the court, the accused persons also said it was an abuse of power to put anybody on trial for an offence that had not been proven.

Prosecution counsel, led by Mr. Godwin Obla, in his argument, said the plethora of evidence adduced by the EFCC against the accused deserved an explanation and prayed the court to discountenance the defendants' application.

While upholding the prayers of the prosecution, Justice Boade said the defendants' application lacked merit and therefore dismissed it. He said the accused must face the fraud trial as there is a prima-facie case against them. His words, "The accused have some explaining to do. I am of the strong view that the proof of evidence is established against the accused."

Justice Boade also said having taken the pleas of the accused in line with the provision of Section 167 of the Civil Procedure Law, they could not challenge the court's jurisdiction.

On Alao-Akala's claim that he was not a public officer and so could not be tried by the EFCC, the judge believed otherwise, quoting relevant authorities to prove that the application lacked merit.