An Abuja high court today discharged and acquitted Mallam Nasir el Rufai. Also freed were Mrs. Altine Jibrin and Dr. Ismaila Iro, two former FCT officials, who were charged with the former minister.
Sitting promptly at 9am, the court reviewed the prosecution’s case and the no-case submission made by the defendants.
The court ruled that none of the eight counts in the charge were proven, and it upheld the no-case submission and discharged all the three defendants. The case had earlier been dismissed by the Federal High Court in 2010 for lack of jurisdiction.
The EFCC re-filed it at the Abuja High Court in 2010 with eight counts. Preliminary objections raised by the defendants were disposed by the court, and the hearing commenced in December 2011.
The prosecution called five witnesses along with a total of 25 exhibits. The prosecution closed its case in July 2013 and the defence moved a motion for a no-case submission. Kanu Agabi, for the third defendant, reiterated that the defendants have no case to answer as the charges were either not proved nor known to law. The learned SAN cited several cases in support of these assertions. For instance, in respect of the PHCN plot, the prosecution led no evidence as to title whatsoever, whilst that of NIPOST had been held to have been validly revoked by another court of competent jurisdiction.
Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, submitted two issues for determination: whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence as required by law, with such a defect being fatal to the case of the prosecution, and whether contradiction by prosecution witnesses should not be a ground for a no case submission.
Chief Adebayo Adelodun, SAN, for the prosecution submitted that the court had earlier ruled against the preliminary objection raised by the accused and that the no case submission is another instance of the same issue that had been decided by this court. He further submitted that the charges are valid and that even if the charges contain extraneous points, it should not be a ground for a no case submission. He cited cases in support of his position. He further reiterated that a prima facie case has been made against the accused persons and that they must respond rather than hide under a no case submission. He stated that this is not the time to go into the credibility of the witnesses and he urged the court to ignore both the no case submission and the ruling in the civil case as it was not certified, is from a court of coordinate jurisdiction and is therefore not binding.
In the reply on point of law, Chief Olujinmi submitted that in order to establish a prima facie case, the evidence from the prosecution witnesses must be sufficient to convict the accused; which is not the case in this instance.
Chief Agabi submitted that contrary to the submission of the prosecution, the defence’s position is not on minor matters but that essential ingredients such as title to the plots of land in question were not proven. He further submitted that the judgment in the civil case need not be certified as it is from the same FCT High Court, to which the court is obliged to take a judicial notice.
Ruling on the matter, the judge noted that the court had had the benefit of being addressed by three eminent senior advocates, including two former attorneys-general.
Upon a careful consideration, the court said, the sole issues that arise is whether a case has been made to warrant a response from the accused. The court is obliged to discharge the accused if a no case has been made to warrant a conviction per section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
One basic tenet of the constitution is that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Thus, the court sought to inquire if there is any evidence to show that the accused used their offices to gratify their friends and relations.
The most important of which is the title to the plots of land in question. The prosecution emphasized that the 1st accused has admitted that PHCN plot was earmarked in the Master Plan as a result of which it is not needed to prove any title. Having reviewed the statement of the accused, the court did not see any such confirmation nor did the prosecution witnesses provide any title to the plots. The first accused was clear in his statement that the plot belonged to the FCDA, not PHCN. Indeed, PW1 confirmed that PHCN had no title to the plot. The court held that there are material contradictions which it resolved in favour of the accused. The court also decided that non production of the Master Plan is fatal to the prosecution’s case. To hold otherwise would amount to speculation on the part of this court, which the court was not prepared to do!
On the NIPOST plot, the prosecution witnesses confirmed that NIPOST breached the terms of the allocation; which made the decision in the civil case irrelevant to the court’s decision. The court said it therefore cannot hold that the accused persons deliberately revoked the NIPOST plot specifically to benefit their friends and relations.
Expatiating on the question of conferring advantage, the court ruled that it is not proven. It recalled the evidence of PW1 who admitted that his daughter got an allocation in the contested PHCN plot because she followed the process of applying or land in the FCT, and he agreed that all Nigerians are entitled to land in Abuja, including the wives of the first accused. The evidence adduced did not show that the listed beneficiaries were not qualified for the allocation of land. The court noted that PW2, the policeman who investigated the case, did not care to investigate how many other Nigerians were allocated land at the same time.
Furthermore, the court noted, PW1 also admitted that as Minister of the FCT, the first defendant was vested with the power to allocate and revoke land, and that the criteria for land allocation approved by the Federal Executive Council includes an allowance for ministerial discretion.
The court decided that since there is nothing in the evidence led to warrant the accused to answer the charges, to compel him to enter his defence would amount to a breach of the constitutional right to presumption of innocence.
Given that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges, the court discharged the first accused person. Since no offence was proven against the first accused, there is no way any criminal conspiracy against the second and third accused persons can be upheld. The court therefore also discharged them.
Reacting to his acquittal, El Rufai said that he thanks all those who have stood by him. He explained that it is a moment of forgiveness for him, because he has put all the pains in the past. He added that his vindication should encourage young people to continue to believe in this country and to be determined to make their contributions to its development, no matter the sphere of their competence, including the public service.
Signed
Muyiwa Adekeye
Media Advisor to Mallam Nasir elRufai
13 December 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment