A Federal Capital Territory, FCT, High Court sitting in Abuja has today discharged former Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, Mohammed Bello Adoke, and six others over the controversial Oil Prospecting Licence, OPL, 245, otherwise known as Malabu Oil scam. Recall that Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, had sued Bello Adoke and other before the high court on an amended 40-count charge bordering on disobeying direction of the law, offering and receiving gratification, conspiracy and forgery, among others.
Adoke, served as AGF and Minister of Justice under former President Goodluck Jonathan administration was dragged by the anti-graft in the suit marked FCT/HC/CR/151/2020.
Other defendant in the case were; Aliyu Abubakar, Rasky Gbinigie, Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, Nigeria Agip Exploration Limited, Shell Nigeria Extra Deep Limited and Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Limited.
The presiding judge ruled a no-case submission filed by the defendants, saying that any trial processes are evidence driven, the prosecution failed to tender certain documents or call some witnesses to prove its case.
He further held that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential elements of the offences the defendants were charged with before the court.
According to him, although the defendants were lawfully presumed to be innocent, to establish prima facie case against them, the prosecution must produce satisfactory evidence to warrant the court to call on them to enter their defence.
The judge added that in the current case, the prosecution failed to establish any prima facie case against the defendants.
Citing example where three counts charges involving forgery could not be proven by the prosecution with any relevant documents as exhibits.
The judge further held that a charge must not be filed for the purpose of doing so, submitting that frivolous charge does damage to the judicial system.
Meanwhile, the judge commended the prosecution counsel for admitting that no case submission has been filled against the defendants.
The judge lamented that it took the prosecution counsel to realise he had no evidence in his case and have just succeeded in wasting the court time.
”The defendants ought not to have been charged in the first instance.
“This, stemmed from the fact that the prosecution failed to produce before the court the minimum evidence to enable the court to order the defendants to enter their defence,” he said.
