Why We Dropped Money Laundering Charges Against Bobrisky – EFCC

The agency’s prosecutor, Bilkisu Buhari, disclosed this on Monday while speaking before the committee investigating N15 million bribery allegation against the agency by Bobrisky.9

She appeared before the committee to explain the details of the EFCC’s investigations, trial and prosecution of Bobrisky.

She noted that, the agency had earlier charged Bobrisky for not rendering returns of his company, Bob Express, contrary to the Money Laundering Act, Section 6.1 and punishable under Section 19 of the same Act.

Buhari however noted that, the EFCC moved the motion on the 5th of April 2024 for the court to hear the matter because it was a vacation matter and was granted leave to proceed with trial.

The EFCC prosecutor said, “Notwithstanding the unequivocal confession of the ex-convict, convicting the essential ingredients in counts 5 and 6 of the charge and having indicated willingness to plead guilty to counts 1 and 4 of the charge, which has to do with mutilating of the naira.

“The prosecution in total fidelity and conduct its own and strict adherence to professional practice of not only disclosing exculpatory documents in defence, having received a report of investigation activities from Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML) which showed that Bob Express is not a designated non-financial business and profession, decided to drop counts 5 and 6 of the charge in the interest of justice and fair hearing, without any inducement or prompting of any sort from the defence, and in line with the mandate of the Special Task Force against naira abuse. We attached the response from SCUML.

“We also attached the charge showing counts 1 to 6. There was no amendment of charge. The dropping of counts 5 and 6 was done in court because the ex-convict elected to plead guilty to counts 1 and 4, which had to do with naira abuse.

“In any event, counts 5 and 6, which had to do with not rendering returns to (2:07) SCUML showed that it was not the Bob Express which he used to trade. It is not a designated non-financial business and profession.

“That’s what informed our decision to drop counts 5 and 6 in court. An amendment of charges is not alien to practice, particularly Sections 216 of ACJA 2015. It is also noteworthy that the alteration made by the prosecution did not contravene any prohibition of external policies of the commission and its standard operating procedures.

“We have amended charges severally in court when the need arises. The steps taken by the prosecution in this proceeding, dropping counts 5 and 6, which is akin to an amendment of the charges, can take place at any time before judgement. It is not alien as the commission has in numerous instances had recourse to amend, add or subtract from the body of the counts of the charge preferred against defendants, and this will not be the last.

“We attached records of proceedings of the court showing how we arranged the defendants in court. To show that the ex-convict was, there was no cohorts between the prosecution and defence, the ex-convict even appealed the judgement of the court. If there was any interaction or any agreement, he would have gotten what he wanted and he couldn’t have appealed.

“We also have the notice of appeal by the ex-convict attached to our documents. We also attached a copy of the charge, the (4:01) record of proceedings, and the memo stating of the special task force that investigated the case of the ex-convict. So I want to state categorically that there was no form of financial inducement to any member of the Commission, especially the prosecution team in respect of this matter.

“All we did was we carried out our duty in as regards to our core values of professionalism and ethics that I took as a legal practitioner to prosecute and not persecute anybody”.

Daily Trust