Adoke: When Mere Allegations Cannot Translate to Facts

The recent judicial pronouncements on the charges against a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, once again highlight the importance of managing criminal charges responsibly as they directly affect individual integrity and freedom, writes Wale  Igbintade

After a vigorous trial that lasted nearly seven years, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja, and Justice Abubakar Kutigi of the FCT High Court in Jabi, Abuja in their separate rulings upheld the ‘no case’ submission by the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke and an Abuja-based property developer, Aliyu Abubakar.

In the case before Justice Ekwo, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had in 2017 charged Adoke and Abubakar, for alleged money laundering to the tune of N300 million. While the EFCC did not mention the Oil Prospecting Lease (OPL) 245 transaction in the charge, the same particulars were also charged by the EFCC before Justice Kutigi in 2020.

In its charge, the EFCC admitted before Ekwo that Adoke took a mortgage from Unity Bank, but contradicted itself by alleging before Kutigi that the money was a bribe from the sale of the oil block by Malabu Oil & Gas Limited in 2011.

At the end of the prosecution’s case, the first defendant (Adoke) filed a ‘no-case’ submission and asked the court for an acquittal without having him present a defence.

On March 28, 2024, Justice Kutigi pointed out the contradictions, while dismissing the charges against Adoke and other defendants, namely Aliyu Abubakar, Rasky Gbinigie, company secretary of Malabu Oil & Gas Limited; Nigeria Agip Exploration Limited (NAEP), Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited (SNUD), and Shell Nigeria Exploration Production (SNEPCo). 

Scolding the EFCC for wasting the court’s time for four years, Kutigi ruled that the EFCC failed to establish a prima facie case to proceed with the trial. The judge pointed out that having gone through the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, nobody alluded to any offer or gratification of N300 million by the second defendant to the first defendant and or that they were privy to the first defendant accepting any form of gratification from the second defendant as a motive for showing favour in the exercise of his official functions.

The court noted that not a single witness mentioned the name of the first defendant (Adoke) in relation to or in connection with this offence or said anything implicating him about the alleged offence.

The court held that “mere allegations, no matter how weighty, do not translate to or are tantamount to facts and evidence that will at least raise a prima facie case, even if weak, to necessitate a response.

A charge, the judge said “must therefore not be filed for the simple sake of doing so or to soothe the ego of any person or institution.”

Citing Overseas Construction Co. Ltd V Creek Enterprises Ltd (1983) 16 NSCC, Justice Kutigi held: “A trial judge cannot decide issues on speculations, no matter how close what it relies on may seem to the facts. On the authorities of our superior courts, speculation is not an aspect of inference that may be drawn from facts that are laid before the court.”

He further submitted: “On the whole, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential elements of the offences for which the defendants were charged and accordingly, the ‘no -case’ to submission has considerable merit and must be sustained.

“In the final analysis, and for the avoidance of doubt, my firm decision, on the basis of the provision of   Section 302 of ACJA 2015 is that the evidence adduced by the prosecution on record is not sufficient to justify the continuation of this trial,” the judge held.

The trial judge added that: “For this reason, I hereby preclude them from entering upon their defence and accordingly, hereby discharge the defendants of the entirety of the charge preferred against them.”

Also, in his ruling delivered on Friday, April 19, 2024, Justice Ekwo held that the EFCC did not provide any evidence to prove the essential elements of the offence against Adoke, who was listed as the first defendant.

Tearing the case of the prosecution to shreds, the judge stated that: “The evidence of PW1 and his exhibits had nothing on this allegation. The evidence of PW2 had nothing on this allegation. The evidence of PW3 had nothing on this allegation. The evidence of PW4 had nothing on this allegation. The evidence of PW5 and exhibits had nothing on this allegation. The evidence of PW6 had nothing on this allegation. The evidence of PW7 and exhibits had nothing on this allegation. PW8 mentioned the sum of N300,000,000.00 four times in his evidence-in-chief.

“On the fourth time, PW8 said, “the refund made to the first defendant in respect of the property he purchased, he (second defendant) paid N300,000,000 Nigerian money”. The evidence of PW9 had nothing to do with the allegation in count 2. Therefore, the essential element in Count 2 that the first defendant accepted cash payment of the equivalent of N300,000,000 in USD from the 2nd defendant cannot be found in the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9.

“The law has always been that the essential ingredient for the offence of conspiracy is inferred from acts that are proved. I have studied the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PWS, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 to see where all or any of them gave evidence concerning the allegation in Count 1 from where this Court can make an inference of any circumstantial nature and found none. I find no prima facie evidence established on account of the allegation in Count 1 and I so hold.

“On the whole, I have weighed the evidence of the prosecution on the statutory parameters on the point of no-case submission… I find that there is no evidence to prove the essential elements of the alleged offences in counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 against the 1st defendant and I so hold.

“Upon the above, I also find that the evidence of the prosecution against the first defendant is manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal or court can safely convict on it and I so hold,” the judge added.

To be fair, Adoke has always said he was not guilty of the charges, rather he was merely carrying out Presidential Approval/Directive to implement the subsisting 2006 Settlement Agreement between the FGN and Malabu, which at the material time had been reduced into a consent judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Even the then AGF, Abubakar Malami (at the time the charges were conceived), had in his reasoned legal opinion to the EFCC confirmed that he had reviewed the Settlement Agreement and could not find any illegality in the transaction that would warrant prosecution.

Similarly, the then Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, a senior lawyer, had also written an opinion to the President through the late Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari, where he opined that the transaction was for the benefit of the country as it would enable the development of the oil block.

Yet, despite the several exonerating opinions and the subsisting judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, the EFCC proceeded to charge the defendants and other entities for corruption, money laundering and other sundry offences.

This celebrated trial of Adoke serves as a lesson to all those involved in the justice system to avoid frivolous trials, as the dignity and integrity of the accused are involved. It further emphasises the need for the prosecution, saddled with the responsibility of adducing credible evidence to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.  This is because, no matter what indictment or formal charges are brought against an accused person regardless of popular opinion, if the prosecution cannot decisively establish his guilt at the trial, he is entitled to be discharged and acquitted.