Paragraph 1: The Acquittal and Overturning of the Lower Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered a resounding victory for Patrick Akpobolokemi, the former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), by discharging and acquitting him of N754.8 million fraud charges. The three-judge panel unanimously overturned the ruling of the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja, which had previously dismissed Akpobolokemi’s no-case submission. The appellate court meticulously dissected the prosecution’s case, presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and found it wanting in establishing a concrete link between Akpobolokemi and the alleged fraudulent activities. The court emphasized that mere allegations without substantive evidence are insufficient to secure a conviction.
Paragraph 2: The Core of the Allegations and the Court’s Findings
The EFCC’s case revolved around accusations of illicit withdrawals and transfers from the account of the Voluntary International Maritime Organisation Member State Audit Scheme (VIMSAS) Committee. However, the Court of Appeal’s judgment highlighted a critical flaw in the prosecution’s narrative: the absence of any evidence connecting Akpobolokemi to the VIMSAS Committee’s financial dealings. The court underscored that Akpobolokemi was neither a member of the committee nor a signatory to any of the relevant accounts. Furthermore, no evidence emerged suggesting that he authorized or approved any withdrawal instructions or internal memos pertaining to the transactions in question.
Paragraph 3: Inadmissible Evidence and the Principle of Legal Admissibility
The Court of Appeal’s judgment delved into the critical issue of evidence admissibility. The justices determined that several key pieces of evidence presented by the EFCC, including testimonies from prosecution witnesses PW9, PW10, and PW11, as well as Exhibits P59–P61, were inadmissible in court. The court firmly stated that a court of law can only consider evidence that meets the strict standards of legal admissibility. This principle, the court emphasized, is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial and preventing wrongful convictions based on unreliable or improperly obtained evidence.
Paragraph 4: The Lower Court’s Error and the Importance of Objection
The appellate court highlighted a significant error made by the lower court: relying on inadmissible evidence even in the absence of objections from the defense. While the defense counsel had consistently argued that the EFCC failed to prove its case, the lower court, under Justice Raliatu Adebiyi, had ruled that a prima facie case existed, compelling Akpobolokemi and his co-defendant to open their defense. The Court of Appeal, however, clarified that a trial court is bound by the law of evidence and cannot base its judgment on inadmissible material, irrespective of whether objections are raised. The court stressed that such evidence should be expunged from the record to prevent it from influencing the outcome of the trial.
Paragraph 5: The Defense’s Arguments and the Prosecution’s Counterarguments
Akpobolokemi’s legal team, led by Collins Ogbonna and Kunle Gbolahan, vigorously challenged the lower court’s decision. They argued that the EFCC’s case lacked a direct link between their client and any wrongdoing. They further contended that the prosecution relied heavily on inadmissible evidence and unreliable witness testimonies. The EFCC, represented by Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), maintained that the evidence, including testimonies from 12 witnesses, substantiated the charges. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the presented evidence failed to reach the legal threshold necessary for a criminal conviction.
Paragraph 6: The Court of Appeal’s Conclusion and the Importance of Due Process
The Court of Appeal’s judgment represents a significant affirmation of the principles of due process and the importance of adhering to strict evidentiary standards in criminal trials. The justices unequivocally stated that a court must act solely on admissible evidence. The failure of the prosecution to establish a direct link between Akpobolokemi and the alleged crime proved fatal to their case. The court’s decision underscores the importance of upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on solid, admissible evidence, not mere allegations or conjecture. The acquittal serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding justice and upholding the rule of law.
