The dismissal, by two courts of high-profile charges of corruption in the controversial N300 million Malabu Oil scam, which has dragged on for about seven years, has again raised concern about the direction of the Federal Government’s anti-corruption campaign.
The dismissal, by two courts of high-profile charges of corruption in the controversial N300 million Malabu Oil scam, which has dragged on for about seven years, has again raised concern about the direction of the Federal Government’s anti-corruption campaign. In particular, is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), charged in the main with the anti-graft function, competent or sloppy with its high responsibility? Or is the agency more excited about public or media trials of suspects at the expense of diligent professional prosecution? Given the ease with which the commission’s cases on Malabu fell like a pack of cards, seven years and so many public funds down the line, there is indeed a need to review the EFCC’s prosecution machinery and strategy concerning public expectations and expenses.
The Federal High Court, in Abuja, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo, on May 10, 2024, discharged and acquitted former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke, SAN, of a case of alleged money laundering involving N300 million—brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in the controversial Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 245, widely known as the Malabu Oil scam.
Mr. Adoke, who served as the justice minister under former President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, was charged in 2017 by the EFCC alongside businessman 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 over the Malabu oil scam. Adoke and Aliyu Abubakar were first arraigned before Justice Binta Nyako in February 2020 and then before Justice Ekwo on June 17, 2020, on a seven-count criminal charge.
Specifically, Adoke was accused of collecting a bribe of N300 million and misleading the Federal Government. He was also accused of granting tax waivers to the oil companies. The courts dismissed the charges for being ambiguous, contradictory or lacking substance. Adoke and his co-defendants had pleaded not guilty to all charges and further proceeded to file a “no-case submission” in the case after the EFCC had closed its case.
Ruling on the no-case submission, Justice Ekwo held that the EFCC did not provide any evidence to prove the essential elements of the offence against Adoke. The court upheld the no-case submission, discharging and acquitting Adoke of the money laundering charge against him. However, Justice Ekwo ruled that Aliyu, the second defendant, has a case to answer on some of the charges against him.
Earlier, on March 28, 2024, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, presided over by Justice Abubakar Kutigi, had also discharged and acquitted Adoke of fraudulent transactions in the same Malabu Oil scam in the 40-count charge brought against him and the aforementioned defendants in 2020 by the same EFCC. In acquitting the former attorney general, Justice Kutigi held that the EFCC filed a poorly drafted charge against Adoke and the other defendants. The judge held that the EFCC failed to prove substantive allegations of bribery and money laundering and failed to lead credible evidence linking Adoke and his co-defendants to the alleged crime. On the issue of the alleged N300 million bribe said to have been given to Adoke by Aliyu Abubakar, the judge held that the EFCC did not provide the necessary evidence to substantiate it.
The deduction from a review of the two judgments of the Abuja High Court and the Federal High Court, Abuja, is that the EFCC was grossly incompetent in the prosecution of the two cases against Adoke and his co-defendants. From the pronouncements of the two judges in the two cases, the EFCC either preferred wrong charges against Adoke and his co-defendants, or the EFCC prosecutor was tardy in the prosecution of the two cases. While Justice Kutigi stated that the EFCC filed a poorly drafted charge against Adoke and the other defendants, Justice Ekwo berated the EFCC for wasting four years on a trial without providing evidence.
Curiously, in one of the cases, the EFCC called ten witnesses, yet failed to establish any prima facie case against Adoke and some of the other co-defendants or adduced any evidence to establish the offence charged. More curiously, the EFCC, in a fresh court filing submitted to the trial court on December 20, 2023 in response to the no-case submission filed by the defendants, told the court that it lacked sufficient evidence against Adoke and other defendants in the case. This admission raises the question of whether the EFCC was out to destroy its case or work against itself. Another incomprehensible thing was that while the EFCC admitted before Justice Ekwo that the N300 million was a mortgage that Adoke took from Unity Bank, it alleged before Justice Kutigi that the money was a bribe from the sale of the oil block by Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd in 2011. Again, this shows manifest confusion, incoherence, inconsistency, and ambiguity in the EFCC’s prosecution.
Considering that lots of public funds have gone down the drain in the Malabu oil scandal, the EFCC should accept blame for handling the scandal cases with a kid’s glove, and for not being on top of its cases. Why embark on a journey without adequate preparation? Succinctly put, the Malabu oil sale was struck in 2011 under former President Goodluck Jonathan’s government. The Nigerian government acted as a negotiator in the sale of the oil block in offshore Nigerian waters. Two international oil firms paid out about $1.1 billion to Nigerian government accounts in the United Kingdom. Most of the money was then transferred to Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, a company then controlled by Nigeria’s former petroleum minister, Dan Etete. Malabu, in turn, transferred over $500 million to accounts controlled by one of the defendants in the case. The EFCC had accused Adoke of benefiting fraudulently from the Malabu deal he helped to broker as the then Federal Attorney-General. The same EFCC would later admit in court that it lacked evidence against Adoke in the case.
The EFCC should understand that what is at stake in those cases is people’s money and Nigeria’s image. Nigeria, the original owner of the OPL 245, was short-changed in the mysterious web of fraudulent legal transactions and disputes that have dogged the oil asset since 1993 when it was first controversially awarded to Malabu Oil and Gas Limited. The funds that were allegedly meant for Nigeria were never accounted for.
Therefore, the EFCC must sit up and perform its duty diligently. The EFCC has said it is reviewing the acquittal of Adoke and exploring the option of appeal and a possible change of counsel. On his part, Adoke is weighing the option of seeking redress in court for becoming, according to him, “an object of a political witch-hunt and scapegoatism” in the hands of the government for nine gruelling years. If Adoke and his co-defendants are diligently defending their cases, the EFCC should diligently prosecute its cases too.
Understandably, the EFCC must not secure convictions at all costs, but it must be seen to prosecute its cases diligently and professionally. These attributes are glaringly absent in these two Malabu cases. The anti-graft agency should also be aware that with the court decisions in favour of Adoke, Nigeria has now lost all OPL 245 cases it filed or joined in Italy, the UK, and Nigeria. Losing the cases in these countries, including the Netherlands, is a strong indictment against EFCC’s preparedness. So the EFCC must reinvent its prosecution strategies if it sees itself as the foremost anti-corruption agency that the government established it to be. Diligent and successful prosecution of financial crime cases, including the Malabu oil scandal would send a strong message that Nigeria is serious about fighting corruption. High-profile individuals or entities involved in corrupt practices should be held accountable. Diligent prosecution acts as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in corrupt activities.
The Federal Government should devise ways to strengthen the EFCC’s capacity to carry out its prosecutorial duties effectively and to overcome its deficit of lack of thorough investigation and diligent prosecution of defendants and the enforcement of the laws. Competent legal practitioners adequately skilled in handling criminal trials should be hired by the EFCC to prosecute high-profile criminal cases.
Diligent prosecution of cases on the part of the EFCC can help restore confidence in Nigeria’s institutions and its commitment to good governance. It can also improve Nigeria’s reputation internationally, which can have positive effects on foreign investment and economic growth.
In the case of OPL245, Nigeria and Nigerians are the losers for not reaping the benefits of the oil block while the cases dragged on. Mechanisms for holding the EFCC prosecutors accountable for their actions are essential to maintain public trust and ensure adherence to the rule of law. Continuous training and development of EFCC prosecutors and law enforcement personnel are necessary to ensure they have the skills and knowledge required to prosecute cases and enforce laws effectively.