EFCC: Why we dropped money laundering charges against Bobrisky

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has clarified that the money laundering charges against Bobrisky were dropped lawfully.

Advertisement

Bilikisu Bala, the prosecutor, on Monday, told a joint committee of the house of representatives investigating allegations of corruption against some officers of the commission and the Nigeria Correctional Service (NCoS)) that charges of money laundering dropped in the trial of the crossdresser were lawful and in compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

Bala, the prosecutor who handled Bobrisky’s trial, revealed that the charges were dropped following the special control unit against money laundering’s (SCUML) disclosure that the crossdresser’s firm Bob Express wasn’t a designated non-financial institution, business and profession (DNFIBP).

“We initially raised six count charges bordering on Naira Abuse and Money Laundering against Okuneye based on his confessional statement that his firm, Bob Express, was not registered with SCUML and was not rendering returns to it. Counts 1-4 were on Naira Abuse while counts five and six were on money laundering. Okuneye’s confession that he didn’t register his firm, Bob Express with SCUML and not rendering returns to it informed the money laundering charges initially included in the six-count charges,” the prosecutor said.

Advertisement

“However, when we wrote to SCUML on the status of the firm,  the Unit responded that it was not a Designated Non-Financial Institution, Business and Profession, DNFIBP.  We cannot lawfully sustain the charges in all sincerity. We, therefore dropped them and relied on the four counts on Naira mutilation to which Okuneye had pleaded guilty.”

Bala dismissed claims of financial inducement in dropping charges maintaining that no such thing happened.

“There is simply no basis for that. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, allows amendment of charges. It is a professional practice. It is laughable for anyone to attribute our decision to monetary issues,” she said.

Advertisement

“Why did we write to SCUML if we didn’t want to include the charges? We wrote to be lawfully guided and when the Unit responded that the firm had not breached any law,  on what basis should we have retained the money laundering charges?”

Copyright 2024 TheCable. All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from TheCable.

Follow us on twitter @Thecablestyle