By
Mallam Farouk Lawan
• Anxiety as Police ask Lawan, Emenalo to report on Tuesday
• Risk seven-year jail term/$3.1m fine • Rep hires Afe Babalola (SAN)
Only the Attorney General of the Federation and Justice Minister, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), is standing between the suspended Chairman of the House Committee on Fuel Subsidy Management, Mallam Farouk Lawan, and the commencement of his trial for alleged corruption.
Also slated for trial for the same offence is the Clerk of the committee, Mr. Boniface Emenalo.
The duo has been recommended for trial by a Special Task Force headed by Commissioner of Police (CP) Amodu Ali.
They are alleged to have accepted $620000 as bribe from oil magnate, Mr. Femi Otedola.
They face seven years imprisonment if convicted by any High Court of Justice under the enabling Act of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.
The maximum sentence is in addition to the payment of a fine of not less than five times the sum of the value of the gratification.
The police have already asked Lawan and Emenalo to report again on Tuesday.
It was gathered that police report on their investigation of the matter and the recommendations of the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. M.D. Abubakar, are now receiving the attention of the AGF.
The AGF is expected to determine whether a prima facie case has been established against the suspects and who, between the police and the ICPC, should prosecute them.
A reliable source in the know of the case said last night: “The police have really concluded their investigation and the Office of the AGF is already in receipt of the report.
“It is a fait accompli that the two suspects will be prosecuted. The AGF will give his legal opinion on how the trial of the suspects should be handled. He will determine when they will face trial and whether it is the police or ICPC that will manage the case.
“As a matter of fact, the AGF and the IGP have had audience last week, which was suspected to be in connection with the arraignment of the suspects.”
It was not immediately clear yesterday whether the police invitation of Lawan and Emenalo for Tuesday is routine or for the commencement of their trial.
A source in Lawan’s defence team said: “We are already aware of the fact that our client and Emenalo have been recommended for trial. We are also battle ready but we learnt that they are waiting for AGF’s advice.
“Whatever it is, Nigerians will know the truth during the trial. As for Lawan’s report on Tuesday, I think it is a routine thing. We have been going there as prescribed in the bail terms offered by the police.”
Responding to a question, the source said: “There are many angles to this case but we are battle ready in all fronts. We have civil and criminal dimensions to the case. As for the civil aspect, the alleged bribe giver has sued the House of Representatives and the Ad Hoc Committee for allegedly indicting his companies. Lawan has sought the leave of the court to be joined in the civil matter with a legal giant, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), as his counsel.”
There were strong indications that ICPC might handle the trial of the suspects.
It was learnt that the suspects might be arraigned in line with Sections 8, 10, 15, 20 and 20 of the ICPC Act 2000.
A reliable source, who spoke in confidence, said: “The lawmaker and the Clerk can be tried cumulatively in line with sections 8, 10, 15, 20 and 20 of the ICPC Act 2000.
“Alternatively, each of the suspects could be tried based on alleged violation of any of the said sections. The outcome of investigation by the police will determine the charges against Lawan and the Clerk of the House Committee.”
Responding to a question, the source added: “This is not the first time that ICPC will be handling the trial of public officers under the same sections. We should not lose sight of the fact that it was the ICPC that prosecuted the case of a former President of the Senate, Chief Adolphus Wabara; ex-Minister (Prof.) Fabian Osuji and others when the bribe-for-budget case came up.
“The same ICPC is prosecuting a former Minister, Prince Vincent Ogbulafor, who was at one time a National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).”
On the prosecution of the suspects, another source claimed that by virtue of Section 26 of the ICPC Act, the Attorney-General of the Federation is empowered to prosecute Lawan or any other suspect.
He said the Nigeria Police may not have anything to do with the prosecution other than giving evidence during trial on their findings.
He also said that ideally, the case ought to be concluded within 90 working days.
The section says: “Prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be initiated by the Attorney-General of the Federation, or any person or authority to whom he shall delegate his authority, in any superior court of record do designated by the Chief Judge of a State or the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja under section 61 (3) of this Act; and every prosecution for an offence under this Act or any other law prohibiting bribery, corruption, fraud or any other related offence shall be deemed to be initiated by the Attorney-General of the Federation.
“A prosecution for an offence shall be concluded and judgment delivered within ninety (90) working days of its commencement, save that the jurisdiction of the court to continue to hear and determine the case shall not be affected where good grounds exists for a delay.”
Findings in ICPC revealed the details of the sanctions in the affected sections of the commission’s Act.
Section 8 says: “Any person who corruptly- asks for, receives or obtains any property or benefit of any kind for himself or for any other person; or
“Agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or for any other person, on account of –
“Anything already done or omitted to be done or for any favour or disfavour already shown to any person by himself in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any matter connected with the functions, affairs or business of a Government, department or corporate body or other organization or institution in which he is serving as an official; or
“Anything to be afterwards done or omitted to be done or favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid, is guilty of an offence of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven (7) years.
Section 10 reads: “Any person who asks for, receive or obtains property or benefits of any kind for himself or any other person; or agrees or attempt to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person;
“On account of – anything already done or omitted to be done or for any favour or disfavour already shown to any person, by a public officer in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any matter connected with the functions, affairs or business of a Government department, public body or other organization or institution in which the public officer is serving as such; or
“anything to be afterwards done or omitted to be done or favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by a public officer in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid, is guilty of an offence of official corruption and shall be on conviction be liable to imprisonment for seven (7) years.
Section 15 says: “Any person who, with intent to defraud or conceal a crime or frustrate the Commission in its investigation of any suspected crime of corruption under this Act or under any other law:
“destroys, alters, mutilates, or falsifies any book, documents, valuable security, account, computer system, diskette, computer print out or other electronic device which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him on account of his employment, or any entry in any such book, document, accounts, or electronic device, or is privy to any such act; or
“Make, or is privy to making any false entry in any such book, document, account or electronic record; or
“Omits, or is privy to omitting, any material particular from any such book, document, account or electronic record; is guilty of a felony, and shall on conviction be liable to seven (7) years imprisonment.”
Section 20 is explicit on the payment of fine which is going to be five times of the bribe sum.
The section adds: “Without prejudice to any sentence of imprisonment imposed under this Act, a Public Officer or other person found guilty of soliciting, offering or receiving gratification shall forfeit the gratification and pay a fine of not less than five times the sum of the value of the gratification which is the subject matter of the offence where such gratification is capable of being valued or is of a pecuniary nature, or ten thousand Naira, whichever is higher.”
SOURCE: 5 August 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment