Home News N544m Grass Cutting Scam: Court Discharges Babachir Lawal, Others; EFCC To Appeal Ruling

N544m Grass Cutting Scam: Court Discharges Babachir Lawal, Others; EFCC To Appeal Ruling

by Editor
192 views

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, presided over by Justice Charles Agbaza, Friday, November 18, discharged and acquitted a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, and five others from the N544 million grass-cutting contract fraud offences brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Lawal,  his younger brother, Hamidu David Lawal, Suleiman Abubakar and Apeh John Monday are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, alongside two companies, Rholavision Engineering (fifth defendant) and Josmon Technologies (sixth defendant) on amended 10-count charge, bordering on fraud, diversion of funds and criminal conspiracy to the tune of over N544million.

Ruling on the no case submission made by the defendants, 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.

The judge held that the Commission did not establish that the former SGF 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.

Specifically, Justice Agbaza declared that no ingredients of any offence was made out by the 11 witnesses that testified for the EFCC.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC has indicated its intention to appeal the ruling of Justice Charles Agbaza of the Federal Capital. Territory High Court Abuja, which dismissed the 10-count charge of corruption brought against the former SGF.

Head, Media & Publicity, Wilson Uwujaren confirmed in a statement on Friday that the anti-graft agency was dissatisfied with the ruling, and has given indication that it will obtain a copy of the judgment for urgent review and challenge its validity at the appellate court.

Leave a Comment