The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has vowed to appeal the ruling which cleared the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, and five others from the N544 million contract fraud offences levelled against them.
OsunDaily News reports that the EFCC had dragged the former SGF, alongside his younger brother, Hamidu Lawal; Suleiman Abubakar; Apeh Monday, and two companies, Rholavision Engineering Limited and Josmon Technologies Limited, before a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The anti-graft agency had slammed 10 charges on them bordering on fraud, relating to the removal of evasive plant species to the tune of N544 million, for which they pleaded not guilty.
The EFCC had on November 30, 2020, re-arraigned Lawal before the court.
Delivering judgement on Friday, Justice Charles Agbaza held that the anti-graft agency failed to establish a prima facie case against the Ex-SGF and the co-defendants.
Ruling on a no-case submission made by Lawal and others, the judge held that no ingredient of any offence was made out by the 11 witnesses who testified for the EFCC.
Justice Agbaza, therefore, discharged and acquitted all the defendants in the 10 criminal charges against them for want of evidence to link them with the purported offences.
Reacting to the ruling in a statement on Friday, EFCC spokesman, Wilson Uwujaren, said the Commission would review the judgment and challenge its validity at the Court of Appeal.
The statement reads: “Ruling on the no-case submission made by the defendants today, Justice Agbaza held that the commission which presented 11 witnesses in the course of the trial, failed to establish the ingredients of the alleged offence.
“He held that the commission did not establish that Babachir Lawal was either a member of the presidential initiative for North East (PINE) that awarded the contract or a member of the ministerial tenders board that vetted and gave approval to the disputed contract.
“But dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC has indicated that it will obtain a copy of the judgment for an urgent review and challenge its validity at the appellate court.”
