Court fixes judgement day of ex-NNPC GMD, Andrew Yakubu’s alleged $9.8m fraud case

A Federal High Court in Abuja has set a sentencing date of March 31 on Tuesday in the $9.8 million fraud charge brought against Andrew Yakubu, former CEO of the group, GMD, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

Judge Ahmed Mohammed set the date after EFCC Counsel Farouk Abdullah and Defense Counsel Ahmed Raji SAN adopted their latest written speeches on the matter.

When the matter was called, Raji reported that the matter was adjourned for the adoption of the final written directions and that he was ready for the business of the day.

Abdullah also spoke along the same lines.

In adopting his application, Raji recalled that the defendant (Yakubu) was before the court in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the matter on April 24, 2020, in which he ordered that the appellant (Yakubu) must come and explain your own side of your story by going into your defence regarding counts three and four.

The anti-corruption agency raided the former NNPC chief’s residence in Kaduna in 2017 and found $9,772,800 and 74,000 pounds ($9.7 million and 74,000 pounds) in a safe.

However, Yakubu was indicted on March 16, 2017, on six counts, but counts one and two were quashed by the trial court.

The Court of Appeal also overturned counts five and six and ordered Yakubu to defend himself on counts three and four.

Counts three and four bordered on failure to fully disclose assets, receipt of cash without going through a financial institution, and intent to prevent a legal transaction in alleged violation of Section 1(1) of the Money Laundering Act. 2011 money and punishable under Section 16(2)(b) of the Act.

Mr. Raji said that in this context, the accused testified and explained his side of the story.

He said the EFCC made several attempts to reintroduce new evidence that were rejected by the court.

The lead attorney said that after the court order to file a final written address, the defense filed the application on November 18, 2021, and served the indictment the same day.

“And upon receipt of Applicant’s final written address, Respondent (Yakubu) filed an Answer on Questions of Law dated December 21, 2021.

“On behalf of the accused, I want to take both directions as our argument and urge my lord to be persuaded to discharge and acquit the accused on counts three and four.

“I urge my lord to hold that he has complied with the Court of Appeal’s prescription,” he said.

Mr Raji prayed to the court to order the Federal Government, through the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) or any agency, to release the money “in question after having satisfied their side of the story under Paragraph 3.1 of our Answer on questions of law.”

But Abdullah opposed Raji’s request.

He said: “By order of this honourable court that the parties must submit addresses in writing, the defendant (Yakubu) submitted an address and another document entitled ‘Response of the defendant on questions of law’”.

The attorney, who adopted the agency’s final written address dated December 6, 2021 and filed it on December 10, 2021, urged the court to hold that the prosecution had proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and, consequently, find Yakubu guilty as charged.

He argued that the request entitled: “Response of the respondent on a question of law” was certainly not a response on a question of law “but an attempt to re-argue his case.”

“We urge my lord to withhold and discredit the document,” he said.

On Raji’s request asking the court to order the federal government to release the sum of money in the custody of CBN, he said that there was an interim order from a sister court chaired by Judge Zainab Abubakar, confiscating said sum from the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“This order was challenged before Judge Abubakar and was denied.

“The defendant, not satisfied with the court ruling, appealed.

“As expected, the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the court of the first instance.

“My lord, essentially, we state that this is not the forum to submit the request to release this money. We urge the court to decide so, ”he argued.

Abdullah, however, said that if the court ruled against the EFCC in its sentencing, “the accused may then wish to proceed to the appropriate court to make his request for the release of the money.”

But Raji disagreed with Abdullah, saying “the answer on the question of law is in no way an attempt to reintroduce the argument.”

According to him, they are points of their own right raised, especially when the complainant did not refer to any part that constitutes a repetition of the arguments already probed in the written address.

“Furthermore, he (the prosecution) has chosen to respond to all of our points raised in the request, which is why he has rejected it. You can’t blow hot and cold at the same time.

“Finally, I assert that all of his (Abdullah’s) arguments, in the proper forum, are unknown to the law for the following reasons:

“First, the money is evidence in this court, so it is an appropriate forum. The only court with dominion over that money is this court.

“Two, the precautionary measure referred to is to abide by the final result of this case. Otherwise, why temporary, why not permanent? Raji said.

Judge Mohammed, who set March 31 for the trial, said: “Having heard the closing arguments of the prosecution and defense lawyers, this case is reserved for the final trial on March 31.