Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Bode George _and_Others_judgment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Bode George _and_Others_judgment

573
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
573
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE IN THE IKEJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT NO 33, CRIMINAL DIVISION IKEJA BEFORE HON JUSTICE J.O.K. OYEWOLE TODAY MONDAY THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. SUIT NO: ID/71c/2008BETWEENFEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA………………COMPLAINANTAND1. CHIEF OLABODE GEORGE……………………………DEFENDANT2. ARCHITECT AMINU DABO.…………………………...DEFENDANT3. CAPTAIN O. ABIDOYE…………………………………DEFENDANT4. ALHAJI ABDULAHI AMINU TAFIDA………………...DEFENDANT5. ALHAJI ZANNA MAIDARIBE………………………….DEFENDANT6. ENGR SULE ALIYU……………………………………..DEFENDANT JUDGMENTThe defendants were arraigned before this Court on the 8 th of August, 2008on a 163 count information to which they all pleaded not guilty.Subsequently, the said information was amended via the amendedinformation containing 68 counts dated 24th October, 2008 to which each ofthe defendants once again pleaded not guilty.The said 68 counts are hereinafter set out in full as follows:
  • 2. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 1ST COUNTInflation of contract prices contrary to Section 22 (3) of The CorruptPractices and other Related Offences Act, 2000.PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th June, 2003 within the Ikeja Judicialdivision did inflate the price of the contract awarded to Kalmer West AfricaLtd for the rehabilitation of accidented Kalmar Container Handler from€215,555.52 (being the prevailing price at the time of the award of thecontract) to €269,965.71.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 2ND COUNTInflation of contract prices contrary to section 22 (3) of The CorruptPractices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 20th July, 2003 within the Ikeja Judicialdivision did inflate the price of the contract awarded to Dateks Ltd for thereplacement and installation of 6 Nos 11KV High Tension Panels withaccessories at substation “C” Tin Can Island Port, Lagos from €310,500.40(being the prevailing price at the time of the award of the contract) to€345,925.00.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 3RD COUNTInflation of contract prices contrary to Section 22 (3) of The CorruptPractices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 2
  • 3. Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 20th July, 2003 within the Ikeja Judicialdivision did inflate the price of the contract awarded to Docklard maritimeLtd for the supply and commissioning of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault TestVan with distance measurement tech & high tension instruments at Lagosport complex from € 170, 437.50 (being the prevailing price at the time ofthe award of the contract) to €236,250.00.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 4TH COUNTInflation of contract prices contrary to section 22(3) of The Corrupt Practicesand Other Related Offences Act, 2000.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 20th December, 2002 within the IkejaJudicial Division did inflate the price of the contract awarded toContinentale Produckten Gesellschaft for the supply and installation of 11KVA H.T. panels at s/s “B” Transformer 1,2, ring coupler, generator andmain s/s transformer panel at Apapa Port Complex from €115,892.90 (beingthe prevailing price at the time of the award of the contract) to €162,250.00.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 5TH COUNTInflation of contract prices contrary to section 22(3) of The Corrupt Practicesand Other Related Offences Act, 2000.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 23rd December, 2002 within the Ikeja 3
  • 4. Judicial division did inflate the price of the contract awarded to Flohr &company for the supply and installation of 3rd generating set, 16 Cyclinderwater cooled, Cummins Industrial diesel engine, operating at 1500 rpmcoupled with brushless Stanford alternator 1645KVA, 11KV, 3PH, 50HZcontinuous output at Apapa from €163,342.60 (being the prevailing price atthe time of the award of the contract) to €211,090.00.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 6TH COUNTInflation of contract prices contrary to Section 22 (3) of The CorruptPractices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 20th December, 2002 within the IkejaJudicial Division did inflate the price of the contract awarded to CompleteEngineering Services Ltd for the complete replacement of obsolete highTension Panels at Sub-Station “E” Tin Can Island, Lagos from €165,870.54(being the prevailing price at the time of the award of the contract) to€253,500.00.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 7TH COUNTInflation of contract prices contrary to section 22(3) of The Corrupt Practicesand Other Related Offences Act, 2000.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about11th August, 2002 within the IkejaJudicial Division did inflate the price of the contract awarded to NiboregGeneral Procurement for the supply of 200 units of Duraline Hose and 8smoke extractors at Apapa Port from €201, 280.00 (being the prevailingprice at the time of the award of the contract) to €251,600.00. 4
  • 5. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 8TH COUNTConspiracy to disobey lawful order issued by constituted authority contraryto section 517 of the Criminal code Cap 32 Vol. 2, laws of the Lagos Stateof Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large),Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, conspired todisobey lawful order issued by a constituted authority to wit: the FederalGovernment of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circularNo F15775, dated 27th June, 2001 on Policy guidelines for procurement andaward of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastals.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 9TH COUNTDisobedience of lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastals, by approving an award ofcontract for N40 million (Forty Million Naira) to Danjuma Kibo CompanyNigeria Limited, for the supply of five (5) numbers Remote Sensing SatelliteImageries to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular. 5
  • 6. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 10TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary tosection 203 of criminal Code Cap 32 vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria,1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large) Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003 at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No. F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor N49, 595,448 million (Forty nine Million Five Hundred and Ninety FiveThousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight naira) to Alliance Tech. Limitedfor the supply and installation of HT Panel and Accessories for FederalLighter Terminal Onne to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) which wasbeyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 11TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of may, 2003 at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No. F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract 6
  • 7. for N35,348,166 million (Thirty five million, three hundred and Forty eightThousand, One Hundred and sixty six naira) to Alba Nigeria Entreprises forthe supply of one (1) No. 70KVA Perkins Generating Set and Installation ofL.T. panel at (NIIT) Zaria to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which wasbeyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 12TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003 at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor N48,890,803.50 million (forty eight million, eight Hundred and NinetyThousand, eight Hundred and Three naira and Fifty kobo) to Flohr ImportExport GMBH for the supply and installation of HT Panel and Accessoriesfor main station and substation No. 6 at Port Harcourt (P/H) to the NigeriaPorts Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as containedin the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 13TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. 7
  • 8. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) some time in 2001, at Lagos, within the IkejaJudicial Divison, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued byconstituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through theFederal Ministry of Finance, in Circular, No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001,on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contract in GovernmentMinistries and parastatals, by approving an award of contract for$294,601.65 million (Two Hundred and Ninety four thousand six Hundredand One Dollars and Sixty Five Cents) to Underwater Engineering Limitedfor retrieval of collapsed 250 ton reinforced concrete structural elementsubmerged in water to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which wasbeyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 14TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director, Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) some time in 2001, at Lagos, within the IkejaJudicial divison, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued byconstituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through theFederal Ministry of Finance, in Circular, No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001,on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contract in GovernmentMinistries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $ 500,000(Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) to Carverton Marine Limited for 52Hyster Cargo Handling Plant to the Nigera Ports Authority (NPA) whichwas beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 15TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCE 8
  • 9. Chief Olabode George, former Chariman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Curcular, No. F15775dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardfor contract for $ 265,950 (Two hundred and Sixty Five Thousand NineHundred and fifty dollars) to Badru Rabiu & Sons limited for supply of one(1) No Mobile Crane (3 tons) for Port Harcourt Port Dockyard to the NigeriaPorts Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as containedin the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE -16TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by Constituted Authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos state ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect amine Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular, No. F15775dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardfor contract for $284, 501 (Two Hundred and eighty four Thousand fivehundred and one dollar) to Mog Holdings Limited for supply of Marineengine with 1 (one) gearbox, GM 12V 71 series for its “Bonny” in ApapaDockyard to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular. 9
  • 10. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 17TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos state ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria thorough the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for $665,372 (six Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand ThreeHundred and seventy Tow Dollars) to Flohr mill Nigeria Limited to add costof fund for the above project to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), whichwas beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 18TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria, Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for $16,868, 086.33 (Sixteen Million, eight Hundred and Sixty 10
  • 11. Eight Thousand and Eighty Six dollars and thirty three cents) to Flohr MillsNigeria Limited for civil works for the strengthening of the Quays at Berth1,2, and 3 in Apapa Port and Channel from Harbour enforcement to theturning basin to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 19TH COUNT.Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large) Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagoswithin the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular NoF15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for $245,700 ( Two Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Sevenhundred Dollars) to Noble Gate Projects Limited for supply of 27 no.Bridgestone Dyna Audi “A” Fender CDA-A600MD X 3.5.M Fender BodiesPort Harcourt to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 20TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large) Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. 11
  • 12. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal ministry of Finance, in circular no F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for $252,375.75 (Two Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand, ThreeHundred and Seventy Five Dollars and Seventy Five Cents) to MOGHoldings limited for supply of marine engine with 1 (one) gearbox, GM 12V71 series for its P.C. Umuakpu in Apapa Dockyard to the Nigeria PortsAuthority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 21STDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director, Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel OMOkhomon (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for $321,360 (three Hundred and Twenty one Thousand threehundred and sixty dollars) to Alliance Technique for major repairs on dieselengine No 3 MWM TBD 400-8K, 1000KVA, 1000rpm, 11 KV at CalabarPort to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approvedlimit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 22ND COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994. 12
  • 13. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomon (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No. F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for $284, 501 (Two Hundred and Eighty four Thousand Fivehundred and One Dollar) to Carverton Marine Limited for supply of PilotCutter “Kiri” with Gearbox with 1 (one) 12V 92 for warri Dockyard to theNigeria ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit ascontained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 23RD COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted Authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomon (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract of£269,965.71 (Two Hundred and Sixty nine Thousand, Nine hundred andSixty Five Euro and seventy one Pence) to Kalmer West Africa limited forrehabilitation of accidented Kalmar Container Handler to the Nigeria Ports 13
  • 14. Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 24TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted Authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomon (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No. F15775, dated 27thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor £403,920 (four Hundred and Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and TwentyEuros) to Cobalt marine Limited for supply of 2 (Two) No. Mafi Stabdardroll Tractors at RoRo Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) which wasbeyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 25TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomon (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular no. F15775, dated 27th 14
  • 15. June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving and award of contractof £403,920 (Four Hundred and Three Thousand Nine Hundred and TwentyEuros) to Seabridge Overseas limited for supply of 2 (two) No MafiGoodeneck at Container Terminal Apapa to the Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the saidcircular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 26TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 11th day of December, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £354, 495 (Three Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, fourHundred and ninety five Euro) to Flohr & Company for supply andinstallation of 25m flood light poles with light fittings at Kirikiri Lighterterminal Phase II to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyondyour approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 27TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna 15
  • 16. Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeriathrough the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27thJune, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor £345,925 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Nine hundred andTwenty Five Euros) to Dateks Limited for replacement and installation of 6Nos 11 KV High Tension panels with accessories at substation “C” Tin CanIsland port Lagos to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyondyour approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 28TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos Sate ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeriathrough the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular no, F15775 dated 27thJune, 2001, on Policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor £236,250 (Two hundred and Thirty six Thousand two hundred and fiftyeuros) to Docklard maritime limited for supply and commissioning of 3phase 70 KVA cable fault test van with distance measurement tech & hightension instrument at Lagos Port Complex to the Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the saidcircular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 29TH COUNT 16
  • 17. Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, Omokhomion (now atlarge), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of may, 2003 atLagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyedlawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Governmentof Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No. F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontract in Government Ministries and parastatals, by approving on award ofcontracts for €354,495 (Three hundred and fifty four thousand, four hundredand ninety five Euros) to Flohr and Company Limited for supply andinstallation and commissioning of 25m floor light poles with fittings atKirikiri Lighter Terminal Phase 1 to the Nigeria ports Authority (NPA),which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 30TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at Large) Engr. B. G.Yakassai (now at large) Emmanuel Omokhomin (now at large), and Mr. R.S.Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos, within theIkeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issuedby Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, throughthe Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No. F15775, dated 27 th June,2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor €354,495 (Three hundred and fifty four thousand, four hundred andninety five Euros) to Lawrence Int‟l Limited for impresses current cathode 17
  • 18. protection, the steel pile wall of berth 8, TCIP to the Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the saidcircular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 31ST COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 VOL.2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B. G.Yakassai (now at large), on or about 18th day October, 2002 at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No. F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor $259,130 (Two hundred and fifty nine thousand, one hundred and thirtyDollars) to Deckcrown and Haskoning Topographic Survey of Moleses forHydographic to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPN), which was forHydographic to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 32nd COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigerian Ports authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002.at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, 18
  • 19. dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministres and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £204,395 (Two Hundred and four Thousand, Three Hundredand Ninety Five Pounds) to Flohr & Company for supply and installation of11KV control synchronizing panel with protection circuit, load outputmetering, preparedtor parallel operation with existing generating set atApapa to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFECNE – 33RD COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos Sate ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £253,500 (Two hundred and fifty three Thousand, fiveHundred pounds) to L.N. Engineering limited to complete replacement ofobsolete High Tension Panel with breaker at s/s Tin Can, Apapa to theNigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit ascontained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 34TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna 19
  • 20. Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.g.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th of October, 2002, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contractfor £253,500 (Two Hundred and fifty three thousand, five hundred pounds)to Complete Engineering Services Limited to complete replacement ofobsolete high tension panels at Sub-station “E” Tin Can Island, Lagos to theNigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit ascontained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 35TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £185,775 (One Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand, sevenHundred and seventy Five Pounds) to Danjuma Kibo & Co. nig. Limited tocomplete replacement of obsolete H.T. panels with breakers at powerhouse/main s/s TCIP to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which wasbeyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 36TH COUNT 20
  • 21. Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobyeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £180,000 (One Hundred and Eighty thousand Pounds) toMartinek International Investment Nigeria Limited for supply of MultibeamEchosounders six Nos for Hydrographic to the Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA) which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the saidcircular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 37TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted Authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £211,500 (Two Hundred and Eleven Thousand Five Hundred 21
  • 22. Pounds) to Melsmore Limited for supply of Multi –purpose HydraulicPower pack anti Pollution Equipment Onne Port to the Nigeria PortsAuthority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 38TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobyeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £252, 375 (Two Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand, ThreeHundred and seventy Five pounds) to Carverton Marine Limited for supplyof main engine with gearbox to PC Umuahia at Port-Harcourt to the NigeriaPort Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as containedin the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 39TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos, 22
  • 23. within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobyeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £284,501 (Two Hundred and eighty Four Thousand, fivehundred and One Pounds) to Carverton Marine Limited for supply of mainpilot cutter Kiri at Warri Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), whichwas beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 40TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £202, 500 (Two Hundred and Two Thousand, five HundredPounds) to Deckcrown Limited for supply of anti Pollution Equipment forOnne Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 41ST COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority 23
  • 24. (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £144,000 (One Hundred and forty four Thousand pounds) toNautica Seatrade Limited for supply of anti Pollution Equipment for OnnePort to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approvedlimit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 42ND COUNT.Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £251,600 (Two Hundred and Fifty One thousand, SixHundred Pounds) to Niboreg General Procurement for supply of 200 units ofduraline hose and 8 smoke extractors at Apapa port to the Nigeria PortsAuthority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 43RD COUNT 24
  • 25. Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £377,250 (Three Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, TwoHundred and Fifty pounds) to Lawrence International company for 150Nos. foam company for Eastern Operations to the Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the saidcircular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 44TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria ports authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £264,765 (Two Hundred and Sixty four Thousand, Seven 25
  • 26. Hundred and sixty Five Pounds) to Alba Nigeria enterprises for 10 units ofFRP Aerodynamic Apapa Port, Lagos (Mobile Inland Inductor) to theNigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit ascontained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 45TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £2,480,000 (Two million, Four Hundred and EightyThousand pounds) to Rynwal Shipyard for supply of Fast Boom layer Boatsto the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approvedlimit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 46TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful 26
  • 27. order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £228,880 (Two hundred and Twenty eight Thousand, eightHundred and eighty Pounds) to Jowiz Nigeria Limited for supply of FastBoom Layer Boats to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyondyour approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 47TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £290, 216 (Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, TwoHundred and Sixteen Pounds) to Jowiz Nigeria limited for supply of 1645KVA 11K, 3 (Phase) 50 Hz Generator set, water-cooled Cummins to theNigeria Ports authority (NPA), which as beyond your approved limit ascontained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 48TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port authority 27
  • 28. (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an awardof contract for £244,400 (Two Hundred and forty four Thousand, FourHundred Pounds) to Marine and operations for two (2) numbers watertankers for fire services H/Q and Container Terminal to the Nigeria PortsAuthority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 49TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 60% asmobilization fee on award of contract for £211, 500 (Two Hundred andEleven Thousand five Hundred Pounds) to Melsmore limited for the supplyof anti pollution equipment for Lagos and Warri Port to the Nigeria PortsAuthority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 50TH COUNT 28
  • 29. Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 60% asmobilization fee on award of contract for £157,925 (One Hundred and fiftyseven thousand, nine hundred and Twenty Five Pounds) to G.H.P. Int‟lLimited for the supply of Electro-Hydraulic plate, bending rolling machineto the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approvedlimit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 51st COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos,within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawfulorder issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government ofNigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775,dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award ofcontracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 100% asmobilization fee on award of contract for £182,736 (One Hundred and 29
  • 30. eighty Two Thousand, seven hundred and Thirty six Pounds) to MatitechInt‟l Limited for the supply of 4 Nos fairway Bouys for the Port of Lagos,Port Harcourt, Warri and Calabar to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 52nd COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 100% as mobilizationfee on award of contract for £228,880 (Two hundred and Twenty eightThousand, eight hundred and eighty Pounds) to Jowiz Nigeria Limited forthe supply of 1645 KVA, 11KV 3-Phase, 50Hz connecting set, watercouples with brustless standard alternator to the Nigeria Ports authority(NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the saidcircular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 53RD COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. 30
  • 31. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 95% as mobilizationfee on award of contract for €403,920 (Four hundred and Three Thousand,nine hundred and Twenty Euros) to Seabridge Overseas limited for thesupply of mofitractors for use in container terminal to the Nigeria Portsauthority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 54TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary tosection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilizationfee on award of contract for €345,925 (Three hundred and forty fiveThousand, nine Hundred and Twenty five Euros) to Dateks limited for thesupply of replacement and installation of 6 No. 11KV high tension panelwith accessories at sub-station C, Tin Can island to the Nigeria PortsAuthority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in thesaid circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 55TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994. 31
  • 32. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilizationfee on award of contract for €236,250 (Two hundred and thirty six thousand,two Hundred and fifty euros) to Dockland Martime Limited for the supply of3 phase 70 KVA cable fault test van with distance measurement tech HTinstrument for use at Lagos port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), whichwas beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 56TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilizationfee on award of contract for €236,250 (Two hundred and Thirty SixThousand, two Hundred and Fifty Euros) to Lawrence Int‟l Co. for thesupply of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault test van with distance measurementtech HT instrument for use at port Harcourt to the Nigerian Ports authority 32
  • 33. (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the saidcircular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 57TH COUNTDisobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary toSection 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State ofNigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, withinthe Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful orderissued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria,through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27 thJune, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilizationfee on award of contract for €175,900 (One Hundred and Seventy fiveThousand, Nine hundred Euros) to project Wheel engineering for thereplacement and installation of 3 No.11 KV High tension (existingtransformer and spare panel with accessories fir use at sub-station B Tin-CanIsland, Lagos) to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond yourapproved limit as contained in the said circular.STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 58TH COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 8th day of August, 2002 at Lagos,within the Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public serviceof the Federation of Nigeria as Board Members of Nigerian ports authority 33
  • 34. (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regardingaward of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of N27, 075,000.00(Twenty Seven million, Seventy five thousand naira) into two separatecontracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequentlyawarded the split contracts to Dockyard Maritime limited for the supply ofthree (3) numbers of Cylinder rubber Fenders size 1000/500 x 500mm toNigerian port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial tothe right of the Federal Minister of Transportation, being the appropriateauthority to award contracts in excess of N20 million (Twenty MillionNaira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 59TH COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagoswithin Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service ofthe Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regardingaward of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of $536,876.75 USD(Five Hudnred and Thirty-six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-fiveUnited state of America Dollars Seventy five Cents) into two separatecontracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits and subsequentlyawarded the split contracts to Mog Holdings Limited for the supply ofmarine engine with 1 (one) gearbox, GM 12V 71 series for its “Bonny” inApapa Dockyard to Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an act which wasarbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal minister ofTransportation, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excessof N20 million (Twenty Million Naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 60TH COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994. 34
  • 35. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagoswithin Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service ofthe Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regardingaward of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of $797,850.00usd(Seven hundred and ninety-seven Thousand, eight hundred and fifty UnitedStates of America Dollars) into three separate contracts, which sum wasbeyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contractsto Belad Ventures Limited, Princadaz Nigeria limited and T. Baas CreationLimited for the supply of one (1) number Terex Telescopic Mobile Crane(30 tons) for Warri Port Dockyard to Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an actwhich was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal ExecutiveCouncil, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50million (Fifty million naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 61ST COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagoswithin Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service ofthe Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regardingaward of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of $441,664.00 USD(Four Hundred and Forty-one Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-FourUnited states of America dollars) into two separate contracts which sum wasbeyond your approved limits and subsequently awarded the split contracts toLawrence International Company and Niboreg General Procurement for the 35
  • 36. supply of Cathodic Protection of steel Sheet Pipewell of Berth 8 Tin- Canisland port Lagos to Nigeria Ports authority (NPA), and act which wasarbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive council, beingthe appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (FiftyMillion Naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 62ND COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 6th day of June, 2003 at Lagos withinIkeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service of theFederation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award ofcontracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €807,840.00 (EightHundred and Seven Thousand, eight Hundred and Forty Euros) into twoseparate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, andsubsequently awarded the split contracts to Cobalt Marine limited andSeabridge Overseas Limited for the Supply of two (2) numbers MafiStabdard roll Tractors at Roro Port to Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) an atwhich was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal ExecutiveCouncil being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess ofN50million (Fifty Million Naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 63RD COUNTAbuse of office contrary to section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. 36
  • 37. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 16th day of October, 2002 at Lagoswithin Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service ofthe Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regardingaward of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €708,990.00(Seven Hundred and Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety euros) intotwo separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits andsubsequently awarded the split contracts to Flohr and Company Limited forthe supply, installation and commissioning of 25m floor light poles withfitting at Kirikiri Lighter Terminal Phase 1 to Nigeria Port Authority (NPA),an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the FederalExecutive council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts inexcess of N50 million (Fifty million Naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 64TH COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 16th day of October, 2002 at Lagoswithin Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service ofthe Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regardingaward of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €697,725.00 (SixHundred and Ninety-seven Thousand, seven Hundred and Twenty fiveEuros) into three separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approvedlimits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Project Wheelengineering and Dateks limited for the replacement & installation of 3 Nos.KV High Tension (incomer, outgoing Transformer) panels with accessoriesat Substation “B” Tin-Can Island Port Lagos to Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the FederalExecutive Council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts inexcess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 65TH COUNT 37
  • 38. Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 6th June, 2003 at Lagos within Ikejajudicial division, while being employed in the public service of theFederation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award ofcontracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €472,500.00 (Four Hundredand seventy Two Thousand, five Hundred Euros) into two separatecontracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequentlyawarded the split contracts to Dockland Maritime limited and Lawrenceinternational Limited for the supply and commissioning of 3 phase 7p KVAcable fault Test Van with distance measurement tech & high tensioninstrument at Lagos Port Complex of Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an actwhich was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Minister ofTransportation, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excessof N20 million (Twenty million naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 66TH COUNTAbuse of office contrary to section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria ports authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th October, 2002 at Lagos withinIkeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service of theFederation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award ofcontracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of £934,581.00 (Nine Hundredand Thirty-four Thousand, five hundred and Eighty-one British Pound 38
  • 39. Sterling) into four separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approvedlimits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Jowiz NigeriaLimited and Flohr and Company for the supply of 1645KVA 11K, 3 (phase)50Hz Generator set, water-cooled Cummins Industrial Diesel engineoperating at 1500 RPM coupled with a Brushless Stanford Alternator,continuous output at Continental Shipyard, Apapa Port Complex to NigerianPort Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the rightof the Federal Executive council, being the appropriate authority to awardcontracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 67TH COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCEChief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th October, 2002 at Lagos withinIkeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service of theFederation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award ofcontracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of £869,575.02 (EightHundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, five Hundred and seventy-five Britishpound sterling tow pence) into four separate contracts, which sum as beyondyour approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to L.N.Engineering Limited, complete Engineering services limited and MartinekInternational Investment Nigeria limited for complete replacement ofobsolete High Tension Panels with Breakers at S/S Tin-Can, Apapa toNigerian port authority (NPA), and act which was arbitrary and prejudicialto the right of the Federal Executive Council, being the appropriate authorityto award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 68TH COUNTAbuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2,Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 39
  • 40. Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority(NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji ZannaMaidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G.Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr.R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th October, 2002 at Lagos withinIkeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service of theFederation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA),with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award ofcontracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of £346,500 (Three hundredand Forty Six Thousand, Five Hundred British Pound Sterling) into twoseparate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, andnautical Seatrade limited for the supply of Anti Pollution Equipment forOnne port to Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitraryand prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive Council, being theappropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (FiftyMillion Naira).Trial started immediately thereafter in the course of which 10 witnessestestified for the prosecution while only one witness, the 1 st defendanttestified for the defence. Prosecution tendered 20 exhibits while the Defencetendered 9 exhibits.PW1 was Ayoola Elijah Ajala a Chief Superintendent of Police attached tothe Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (hereinafter called EFCC)as investigator.His evidence in chief was that he was co-opted into the Committee set up bythe Federal Government to review the activities of the Nigerian PortsAuthority under the chairmanship of the then Executive Chairman of theEFCC, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu. For ease of reference the said Committee shallhereinafter in this judgment be referred to as “the Ridadu Committee”.He outlined the terms of reference of the said Committee and stated that itsubmitted its report to the Government which then forwarded it to the EFCCfor more detailed investigation but he however could not participate in thesaid investigation as he was transferred out of Lagos.He identified a certified true copy of the report of the said Committee and itwas admitted as exhibit P1. 40
  • 41. Under cross-examination from the lead counsel for the 1st defendant MrAyanlaja (SAN), he testified that he was not a signatory to exhibit P1 andthat the defendants were invited by the said Committee.Since he took no part in the subsequent investigation he could not testifyabout it but identified minutes of the 11th Board meeting of the NPA and itwas admitted as exhibit D1.Shown portions of the said exhibit D1 relating to contracts alleged in thecharge to have been inflated he stated that no inflation was apparent on theface thereof and would rather leave detailed testimony to the investigators.He stated that the work of the Ribadu Committee extended beyond the boardto the entire NPA and that the 1st defendant appeared before the saidcommittee but he was not part of those who interacted with him personally.He stated further that to effectively discharge its functions the committee co-opted professionals from various governmental institutions including theEFCC and he headed the EFCC group.He was confronted with a certified true copy of the minutes of the 9th boardof directors meeting of the NPA and another certified true copy of theminutes of the 11th board of directors meeting of the NPA and they wereadmitted as exhibits D2 and D3 respectively. From the two exhibits nocontract was seen to have originated from the NPA board, no inflation ofcontracts was apparent; he could not identify any split contract and not beingan expert on pricing he could not testify on it.He listed the contract approval levels identified by him in NPA andindicated the difference between the board and management levels.Under further cross-examination from the learned lead counsel for the 2nddefendant, Mr Adesina (SAN) he stated that was not aware of anygovernment white paper on exhibit P1 and was equally not aware it wasrejected.To his knowledge no contractor involved in the Counts being tried wasinterviewed by the Ribadu Committee, and he also knew that the NPA boardused a 1999 guideline for the contracts awarded in the period under reviewbut he was not aware of how the 2001 financial guideline wascommunicated to the NPA. 41
  • 42. He stated that he was aware of a price survey unit in the NPA but would notknow how it worked. He however insisted that the board of the NPA had aduty to verify every contract before approving it.Shown exhibits D1 and D2 once again, he observed that the apparentcontents thereof cannot be conclusive as indicated from later investigationand that a representative of the supervising Ministry of Transportparticipated in the board meetings.Cross-examined further by Mr Ojo the lead counsel for the 3rd Defendant, hestated that although he was not aware that exhibit P1 was adopted by theFederal Government it was referred to the EFCC for further investigation.He further stated that the defendants sitting as board members of the NPAhad responsibility to approve or reject contracts.Under cross-examination from Mr Sanni for the 4th defendant he stated thatthe 4th defendant was invited by the Ribadu Committee, that to hisknowledge none of the defendants benefited from the awarded contracts andthat none of the benefiting companies belonged to them.Mr Ukoh the learned counsel for the 5th defendant adopted previous cross-examinations of other defence counsel while the lead counsel for the 6 thdefendant Mr Farounbi cross-examined him further and he stated that henever met the 6th defendant before coming to Court to testify and was notaware of his invitation by the Ribadu Committee.He was shown exhibit D2 but could not explain why other named boardmembers were not charged along with the defendants.He reiterated that no contract originated from the board or 6 th defendant inparticular and that although the contracts were expected to have been vettedby professionals the board still had responsibility to reject or approve anycontract placed before it.He was re-examined by Mr Hassan the then lead prosecutor and he clarifiedthe circulars on board approval levels. He insisted that the board was notbound to approve all contracts recommended to it by the management. 42
  • 43. PW2 was Engineer Mustapha Bukar a senior civil servant and one timedirector of Maritime in the Federal Ministry of Transport.His evidence in chief was that in October 2003 he served as Chairman of theAdministrative Panel set up by the then Minister of Transport to reviewcontracts awarded by the NPA between 2001 and 2003.In the course of his said assignment, he interacted with the 1 st, 2nd and 3rddefendants and identified the two government circulars which formed thebasis of the review exercise as well as the interim and final reports of hisCommittee. They were admitted as exhibits P2 to P5 respectively.He highlighted some of the irregularities noted by his Committee andreflected in its reports.Cross-examined by Mr Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant he stated thatthe inclusion in his committee of a person who had previously expressly hisgrievances about activities of the NPA leadership did not affect itsobjectivity as the committee also noted the incongruity and ensured the saidperson played no prominent role in its activities.He denied that his report was rejected but stated that it led to more detailedinvestigation.His committee found that no contract originated from the board and althoughexhibits P2 and P3 came in the course of the life of the NPA board in whichdefendants served, the circular exhibit P3 was brought to their attention bythe Ministry‟s representative on the board who later testified as PW4 andwas not charged along with the defendants.While he was aware that government parastatals differed in functions andrevenue base, he was also aware that NPA generated its own revenue but heknew nothing of the expenditure limit of the NPA board prior to 2001.He was shown exhibit P5 and stated that he did not come across any contractthat was inflated or split at the board level as these took place at lower levelsand while not in agreement with the J.K. Randle price report noted that NPAdid not use its internal price intelligence units.Further cross-examined by Mr Adesina (SAN) for the 2nd defendant hisattention was drawn to the portion of exhibit P1 referring to government‟s 43
  • 44. views about his report but he insisted that his report was not rejected as theterms of reference of the later Ribadu Committee differed from his.He once again denied being aware of the previous expenditure limit of theNPA board prior to 2001 and stated that the portion of his report exhibit P5on the subject was based on information received by the Committee.Shown the received stamp date on exhibit P3, he stated that it was an error.Under cross-examination from Mr. Ojo for the 3rd defendant, he stated thathe did not know if his report exhibit P5 was adopted by the FederalGovernment and insisted that although there was no NPA stamp on exhibitP3 it was deemed received by all those it was addressed to.He further stated that his committee disagreed with the Randle price reportand did not use it.The learned counsel for the 4th defendant adopted previous cross-examinations by other defence counsel and under cross-examination fromMr. Ukoh for the 5th defendant he denied being aware that his committeewas a fall out of the then feud between the 1st defendant and the thenMinister of Transport.He admitted that his committee did not invite the 5th defendant and he nevermet him before appearing in court.Under final cross-examination from Mr Farounbi for the 6th defendant hestated that the 6th defendant was also not invited by his committee and henever met him as well before coming to testify in court. He would not knowif any of the companies which benefited from the contracts belonged to the6th defendant and agreed that exhibit P3 emanated from the Ministry ofWater Resources where he presently serves and not Transport.He was not re-examined.PW3 was Mr Bamanga Bello an operative of the EFCC.His evidence in chief was that he was co-opted into the Ribadu Committeeand led the subsequent EFCC investigations based on the two Committees‟reports; exhibits P1 and P5 in the course of which assignments he interactedwith the defendants. 44
  • 45. In the course of the investigations he examined various documents includingminutes of board meetings of the NPA which revealed that irregularcontracts were awarded at the 9th and 11 board meetings of the NPA.To determine foreign exchange values, he contacted the Central Bank ofNigeria and after examining the minutes exhibits D1, D2 and D3, relatingthem to the government circulars exhibit P2 and P3 and applying yardsticksfor fair pricing adopted by the Ribadu Committee, he came up withschedules of contracts inflated, split or beyond approval levels.He identified the document to which was attached the prevailing rates in2001 to 2003 obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria as well as theschedules he made and they were all admitted as exhibits P6 to P9respectively.He was shown exhibit P1A and he went through it in details explaining thevarious entries therein.Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant hegave his academic qualifications and professional experience.He explained that contract pricing was handled by a technical sub committeewhich he was not part of but that the criteria used were standard and notarbitrary.He stated that his investigations took cognizance of the NPA Act andasserted that from the minutes exhibit D2 the defendants were aware of thefinancial guideline exhibit P3 and could at the stage it was brought to theirnotice recall all contracts already awarded at that meeting which werebeyond the new approval limits.He further stated that the defendants admitted knowledge of exhibit P3 intheir various extra judicial statements and that he was aware of the variouscomposition of the NPA board during the period under review as well as thevarious ports under the NPA.He was shown exhibits P6, P7 and P8 and he stated that apart from theminutes of meetings, he also saw the contract documents relating thereto andexplained certain items said to be split.He agreed that the minutes showed no resolution splitting contracts as theboard approved what was presented by management but insisted theapprovals were improper and could have been withheld. 45
  • 46. He confirmed that the Nigerian Ports Authority Act, 1999 was used asguidelines and also agreed that the NPA is subject to the Minister ofTransport but pointed out that going by exhibit D2 the government guidelinein issue was forwarded by the said Minister of Transport. He read relevantportions of the said exhibit D2.He identified the covering letter of the Secretary of the NPA to which wasattached the guidelines said to have prevailed in NPA prior to 2001 and bothwere admitted together as exhibit D4.He conceded that apart from the minutes of the board meeting he did not seeany copy of the letter from the Ministry of Transport conveying exhibit P3 tothe NPA and when his attention was drawn to the list of members of theRibadu Committee stated in exhibit P1, he insisted that he was a co-optedmember.When shown discrepancies in the dates in exhibit P1A vis a vis the minutesof the board meetings, he explained that he was guided by the dates in lettersof award of the contracts involved.He reiterated that contracts were awarded by the defendants at prices farabove the fair prices determined by the Ribadu Committee and stated that allthe allegations now forming the present charge were put to the 1 st defendantand his co defendants when they were interviewed individually.He conceded that as at 2005 when the Committee sat the 2001 financialguidelines was not being used in the NPA but rejected the suggestion that itwas because the 2001 guideline was never received. He was shown a letterfrom the Managing Director of the NPA confirming the prevailing guidelineand it was admitted as exhibit D5.He listed the various levels in the NPA at which contracts are awarded andthe various personalities who were managing directors of the NPA in theyears under review but pointed out that all the contracts found to be irregularwere awarded at the 9th and 11th board meetings during the tenure of the 2nddefendant.He agreed with the senior defence counsel that all the contracts involvedemanated from the end users and that none originated from the board. 46
  • 47. He was shown exhibit D3 and he identified certain items therein as examplesof an obviously split contract which the board to which the defendantsbelonged approved thereby shirking their responsibilities.He also stated that it was found that the NPA disregarded the in house priceintelligence unit and acknowledged that some of the board membersinvolved were not arraigned with the defendant which was outside hispurview not being a prosecutor but insisted that the defendants were chargedbased on their personal roles as board members.Cross-examined further by Mr Adesina (SAN) for the 2nd defendant he onceagain listed the various contract awarding levels in the NPA but could notremember off hand the names of all the board members of the NPA in theperiod under review, he however remembered that the secretaries wereinvited by the Ribadu Committee. When his attention was drawn to the listof members of members of the board in the said period who were notcharged with the defendants, he insisted that the prosecution was notselective.His attention was then drawn to exhibit D5 and he agreed that in 2005 thepre 2001 expenditure guideline was still being used in NPA well after thedefendants had ceased being members of the board.He was shown the certified true copy of a letter from the secretary to theNPA stating the functions, powers and procedure of the NPA board and itwas admitted as D6.He stated that part of the documents factored into the price mechanism of theRibadu Committee was the J.K. Randle report and the certified true copy ofthe reaction of the NPA leadership to the said report was admitted as exhibitD7.Under further cross-examination from Mr. Ojo for the 3rd defendant hestated that the NPA failed to put a due process team in place and that theboard had supervisory jurisdiction.He insisted that the identified item in exhibit D3 was split and that thedefendants approved inflated contracts denying once again that prosecutionwas selective. 47
  • 48. When cross-examined by Mr. Sanni for the 4th defendant, he stated that the4th defendant appeared before his investigation team after PW1 had beentransferred out of Lagos.Learned counsel for the 5th defendant adopted the cross-examinations of theother defence counsel while under cross-examination from Mr Farounbi forthe 6th defendant he insisted that the defendants represented the board of theNPA in the period under review.He stated further that the 6th defendant was invited and appeared before hisinvestigation team and when shown exhibits D2 and D3 he stated that theboard approved recommended prices which were inflated even if it neverincreased any recommended price.When re-examined he said that he was co-opted into the Ribadu Committeeand participated in the deliberations.PW4 was Alhaji Wali Masur Kurawa a civil servant who sat on the sameboard of the NPA with the defendants as ex officio member representing theMinistry of Transport.His evidence in chief was that he attended one out of the three meetings ofthe NPA board constituting the 9th Board meeting covered by exhibit D2.At the meeting he attended, he drew the attention of the board to the newapproved expenditure guidelines but they refused to comply. He identifiedexhibit P3 as a copy of the guidelines he drew the defendants‟ attention to.He confirmed that the said circular exhibit P3 extends to the NPA but wouldnot know if it had been forwarded to the NPA prior to his bringing it to theboard‟s attention. However as the said circular was meant for immediateimplementation he expected that it would had been sent to the ManagingDirector of the NPA.He stated that none of the defendants objected at that meeting to the decisionnot to comply with exhibit P3 and explained that contracts awarded by theNPA board in foreign currency were usually calculated at the Central Bankof Nigeria rate.Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant hewas able to recall his invitation and testimony before the Ribadu Committee. 48
  • 49. Because he left the NPA in 2004 he was not aware of exhibit D5 but knewthat prior to the circular exhibit P3 the approval guideline in NPA was the1999 guideline which gave N60million ceiling to the board.He stated that no contract was awarded at the third and last session of the 9 thboard meeting where he brought up the circular exhibit P3 and now recalledthat he attended a previous session of the said 9th board meeting wherecontracts were awarded.He stated further that communications between the Minister of Transportand the NPA would either be in writing to the Managing Director or throughthe Ministry‟s representative on the board.He reiterated that he would not know if the circular exhibit P3 had beencommunicated to the NPA before he did and that prior to that time he toowas unaware of its existence.To his knowledge the board did not inflate or split any contract althoughboard papers were usually delivered late which he complained about.He agreed that if implemented exhibit P3 could cripple port activities andrecommended enhanced limits for the NPA in his testimony before theRibadu Committee same as the former Minister of Transport, Mr AbiyeSekibo. He identified the minutes of the Ribadu Committee related theretoand it was admitted as exhibit D8.Under further cross-examination from Mr. Adesina (SAN) he confirmed thatdecisions of the board were joint but was not conversant with the operationsof the departments in NPA.He stated that no contract originated from the board and that none wasawarded at a higher price than recommended by management.He further stated that due to its sensitive nature, NPA needed to be able totake quick decisions.Further cross-examined by Mr Ojo for the 3rd defendant he stated that he wasdirected to bring up exhibit P3 at the board‟s meeting when the Minister ofTransport noted that NPA was not complying therewith and to make up forthe lapse of the planning department in the Ministry which had responsibilityfor circulating such directives, the Minister then wrote and he circulated. 49
  • 50. He insisted that exhibit P3 emanated from appropriate quarters.Learned counsel for the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants adopted the previouscross-examinations of the other defence counsel.When re-examined he identified exhibit D5 as the circular stipulatingprevious approval level but noted that it did not actually contain N60 millionlimit for the NPA board as he previously stated under cross-examination.PW5 was Mr Usman Jida Shuwa a civil servant. His evidence in chief wasthat he is presently the director of administration in the Ministry of Interiorbut was the successor of PW4 in the Ministry of Transport.He knew all the defendants except the 1st defendant and was a full memberof the Ribadu Committee, and chaired most of the meetings of the saidcommittee in the absence of the substantive Chairman, Mallam Ribadu.He recounted his wide experience in the Civil Service giving details ofvarious positions previously held by him and identified exhibit D8 asminutes of several meetings of the said Ribadu Committee.He also gave details of how the circular exhibit P3 emerged and stated thatthe NPA board failed to comply with it but rather continued to rely on the1999 guidelines. The findings of his Committee as contained in exhibit P1also included inflation and splitting of contracts.He identified exhibit D4 as the 1999 guidelines relied on by the NPA board.He stated that Ministries were duty bound to convey government circulars totheir parastatals which by the content of exhibit D2 was done in respect ofexhibit P3 and that issues relating to inflation and splitting of contracts werehandled by a technical sub-committee whose report was adopted by thelarger Ribadu committee.He defined what constitutes splitting of contracts in governmentprocurement parlance.Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant hespelt out the communication channel between the Ministry of Transport andits parastatals and stated that although he saw no letter from the Minister ofTransport to the NPA on exhibit P3 he was aware that PW4 brought it to thedefendants‟ attention as shown in exhibit D2. 50
  • 51. He was sure that prior to exhibit P3 the financial guideline was not exhibitD4 as according to him no Minister had powers to unilaterally stipulatefinancial guideline for parastatals under him and produced the Governmentfinancial guidelines which preceded exhibit P3 and it was admitted asexhibit D9.He confirmed that no contract emanated from the board but contended thatthe board was not bound to approve all recommendations made to it.He admitted not being part of the Ministry of Transport during the periodunder review but could not ascertain whether exhibit D9 was shown to thedefendants or PW4 by his committee even when shown the minutes of theproceedings of that Committee exhibit D8 and was not aware of anydisciplinary measures taken against the signatory to exhibit D4 for writingthe said letter.His attention was drawn to the views of the then Minister of Transport thatthe implementation of exhibit P3 would ground the ports and in reactionthereto he stated that while this could be so, the right procedure was to bringthe situation to the President‟s attention for a waiver to be granted.He stated further that his knowledge of the contracts involved emanatedfrom the evidence presented to his Committee and was sure that defendantswere confronted with allegations of contract splitting and inflation whichthey all denied.Under further cross-examination from Mr. Adesina (SAN) for the 2nddefendant he stated that exhibit P3 was meant for all government ministriesand parastatals including NPA and that none can claim exemption andfurther that after being made aware of exhibit P3 the defendants continued toaward contracts in disregard thereof.He recalled that he was posted to the Ministry of Transport in 2005 asMaritime Director but he never sat on the board of NPA as the board was notconstituted during his tenure.He was shown exhibit P1 and confirmed that it did not contain names ofcontractors involved in the Counts being tried and when shown exhibit D9he also confirmed that the certification thereon was made by the EFCC butinsisted that all Government Ministries and Parastatals got the said exhibitD9. 51
  • 52. He stated that he did not sign exhibit P1 as Chairman since Mallam NuhuRibadu was the appointed Chairman and agreed with the learned seniorcounsel that exhibit D4 preceded the defendants‟ membership of the NPAboard and that exhibit D6 written by the Legal Adviser to the NPA conformswith exhibit D4 which the defendants said they complied with.Further cross-examined by Mr Ojo for the 3rd defendant he stated that he didnot know if exhibit P1 was adopted by the Federal Executive Council.He insisted that the board members of the NPA had responsibility to ensurethat only proper contracts were approved and to also direct management inappropriate circumstances.He said that while serving as Director of Maritime Services in the Ministryof Transport exhibit D4 was never brought to his attention and denied thesuggestion that exhibit D9 was prepared for the purposes of this trialinsisting it was a genuine government circular.Mr. Sanni for the 4th defendant adopted the previous cross-examinations ofthe other defence counsel while he was cross-examined by Mr. Ukoh for the5th defendant and he stated that government circulars on the face thereofnever state the law enabling them.Under cross-examination from Mr Farounbi for the 6th defendant he statedthat only the 1st and 2nd defendants appeared before his Committee but hedid not know the capacity in which the defendants were charged and was notaware of any other instance where anyone other than PW4 brought exhibitP3 to the attention of the defendants.When re-examined by the learned prosecutor he stated that exhibit D9 wasthe appropriate operating financial guideline before exhibit P3 and notexhibit D4 which had no legal mandate.PW6 was Mr Olanrewaju Yusuf Olaleye a quantity surveyor and civilservant in the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development.His evidence in chief was that he has about 18 years professional experienceand initially served as a pioneer consultant to the Budget Monitoring and 52
  • 53. Price Intelligence Unit located in the Presidency otherwise called the DueProcess Office before he was later absorbed into the Federal Civil Service.He was a member of the Ribadu Committee and chaired the technical sub-committee which handled the issue of pricing of contracts for which exercisehe co-opted relevant professionals from various governmental bodies relatedto NPA activities.His technical sub-committee inspected all available contract recordspainstakingly and physically inspected various project sites where possible.Prices were determined using acceptable industry standards and at the end ofthe exercise they found some of the contract prices fair, some high and someindeterminable due to absence of documents. They also found incidents ofsplitting and inflation of contracts.In line with standard professional practice, their findings were initially madeacross to the defendants and others affected for them to have the opportunityto respond and possibly provide justifying documents. They obtainedresponses from some of the past Managing directors and these responseswere reflected in the final report but none of the board members responded.He identified exhibit P1A as the findings of his Committee and explainedhow fair prices of the contracts involved were determined emphasizing thathis Committee was thorough and fair.Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant hedenied being aware of any price intelligence unit in the NPA and did notpersonally ask about it. He also did not personally question the defendantswhen they appeared before the Committee as he was busy at the premises ofthe NPA with the activities of his technical sub-committee but he attendedmeetings of the main committee.Despite the enormity of the necessary expenditure profile of the NPA whichcould be stifled with the implementation of exhibit P3 he still felt the properthing was to obtain presidential waiver instead of willful disobedience.He stated that he found that all contracts approved by the defendantsoriginated from the user departments which did not include board membersand that the board minutes did not reflect resolutions to split or inflate 53
  • 54. contracts but that the approvals made were irregular for failing to complywith government guidelines.He stated further that due to the absence of resident due process teams in theNPA, it was impossible for him to identify the stage in the process whencontracts splitting and inflation occurred but that the approvals by thedefendants were not disputed.He did not agree that the NPA was not covered by exhibits P2 and P3 andinsisted that as directed by exhibit P2, the NPA board as final authorityought to have set up due process teams different from appraisal officers inuse in NPA.He further insisted that the defendants were afforded right of reply to thereport of his technical sub-committee but failed to utilize it unlike pastManaging Directors and Managers who exploited the opportunity.He was of the view that PW4 was not a full member of the NPA board as heonly represented the Ministry of Transport and when shown exhibit D9, theminutes of some of his Committee meetings he conceded that the only issueput to the 1st defendant was about approval beyond limit but he was resolutethat a review of the minutes of the relevant NPA board meetings in questionwill reveal splitting of contracts.He said that the term „split of contracts‟ as shown in exhibits P2 and P3 hadspecial meaning in procurement and that the defendants were notified in thatsense but could not say whether exhibit P2 was received in the NPA.He specifically referred to pages 75 and 78 of exhibit D2 as example of asplit contract which the defendants wrongly approved.He stated that his committee was concerned about the entire approving andawarding authorities in the NPA which included the defendants and that theabsence of due process teams allowed the prevalence of arbitrariness in theNPA although no appraisal officer confessed such to him.He explained that before any contract could be approved by the FederalExecutive Council it would be accompanied by a due process certificateunlike what obtained in the NPA board in which the defendants served. 54
  • 55. He stated that he never personally met or interviewed PW4 as he interactedwith some appraisal officers but was aware he represented the Ministry ofTransport on the NPA board.He insisted that price determinants are standard and once again explainedhow fair prices in this instance were arrived at.He agreed with the learned senior counsel that knowledge of exhibits P2 andP3 was crucial to compliance therewith.Further cross-examined by Mr. Adesina for the 2nd defendant he pointed outthat only the presidency had a due process department and that what NPAdid not have in place was a due process team comprising relevantprofessionals.He further stated that all contracts ought to have a due process certificate butagreed that this was not indicated in exhibit P1, the committee‟s report.He maintained that he actively compiled exhibit P1A with his committeemembers and that he is a pioneer consultant on due process in the country.He said that his price evaluation included cost of training and when hisattention was drawn to exhibits D2 and D3 concerning contracts mentionedin Counts 1-7 whose awarded prices included cost of staff training, heagreed that it would affect the final price.He also agreed that contracts awarded by the defendants were done at belowcontractor quotes and that none of the defendants worked as appraisalofficers in NPA.Concerning appropriate foreign exchange rates, he stated that he relied onexhibit P9 despite the date on the covering letter thereof but agreed thatcontractors were not bound to source their foreign currency needs from theCentral Bank of Nigeria.Shown exhibit P1 he conceded that none of the contractors involved in thecounts being tried was interviewed by his Committee but however explainedthat this was deliberate to avoid possibility of prejudice.He stated that he sent out his subordinates to find out prices frommanufacturers representatives and agents locally and was well aware of thedisagreements with the J.K. Randle prices but that his Committee only reliedon some other aspects of the said report other than pricing. 55
  • 56. When asked about the other publications and documents relied on for pricingguidance, he responded that they were not in court and could not recall theirnames in full offhand.Under additional cross-examination from Mr. Ojo for the 3rd defendant, hestated that the defendants were concerned with contract approvals after theirsubordinates must have completed the preliminary stages.He maintained his earlier definition of contract splitting and insisted that thedefendants approved split contracts even if from exhibits D2 and D3 theydid not pass any resolution to split contracts.Learned counsel for the 4th and 5th defendants adopted the previous cross-examinations of the other defence counsel while under more cross-examination from Mr Farounbi for the 6th defendant he stated that no singlecontract approved by the defendants had due process certification and thatnotwithstanding the content of exhibit P1, PW4 was not a full member of theboard as he only represented the Ministry of Transport.He agreed with the learned counsel that his sub-committee solely handledtechnical issues.When re-examined by learned lead prosecutor, he stated that what guided hiscommittee on foreign exchange was the attachment to exhibit P9 and not thecovering letter.PW7 was Mr Azuonye Okorocha a staff of the Central Bank of Nigeria.His evidence in chief was that his office received a letter from the EFCCasking for the prevailing foreign exchange rates from 2001 to 2003 and thesaid information was supplied.He identified exhibit P9 as the letter signed by him for the Central Bank ofNigeria and that the attachment thereto represented the requested rates for2001 to 2003 which is system generated and unalterable.Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant hestated that foreign exchange rates are determined on daily basis while theattachment to exhibit P9 does not reflect daily entries.Under further cross-examination from Mr. Adesina (SAN) for the 2nddefendant he read the attachment to exhibit P9 showing monthly rates. 56
  • 57. Learned counsel for the remaining defendants adopted the cross-examinationalready made and he was not re-examined.PW8 was Mr Sanusi Mohammed an operative of the EFCC.His evidence in chief was that he got to know the defendants through hisinvolvement in the investigation of this case in the course of which hesupervised the extra judicial statements made to the EFCC by the 3rd, 4th, 5thand 6th defendants.He identified the said statements and they were admitted as exhibits P10,P11, P12 and P13 respectively.Cross-examined for the 1st defendant he stated that his only role wassupervising the statements he tendered.Other defence counsel adopted the cross-examination made for the 1stdefendant and he was not re-examined.PW9 was Mr. Temilu Alkali also an operative of the EFCC.His evidence in chief was that he knew the defendants during theinvestigation of this case and personally interviewed the 1 st and 2nddefendants when they made statements to the EFCC.He identified the statements made by the 1st defendant and they wereadmitted as exhibits P14 to P18 respectively.Under cross-examination for the 1st defendant he insisted that he was presentand supervised the making of exhibit P14 by the 1st defendant in Abuja andalso witnessed the remaining ones in Lagos.He stated that his only role was in supervising the making of the statementsin question.He was not cross-examined by the remaining defence counsel and was alsonot re-examined.PW10 was Mr Ibrahim Shetima an engineer with the Nigerian MaritimeAdministration and Safety Agency otherwise called NIMASA.His evidence in chief was that he was co-opted into the technical sub-committee of the Ribadu Committee under the leadership of PW6 whichdealt with issues of contract splitting and inflation.He saw documents relating to the contracts involved and as an electricalengineer visited most of the sites physically and also for price verification 57
  • 58. visited manufacturers, manufacturer‟s representatives, agents and in somecases checked the internet.He identified exhibit P1A as the findings of his sub-committee and pointedout item 18 thereon as an instance of split contract and item 4 as inflatedcontract and explained how he came to the conclusion.Under cross-examination for the 1st defendant he stated that he was notaware of the professional leaning of the 5th defendant and never knew therewas any engineer on the board of NPA.He agreed that the contracts in question originated from end users and alsoagreed that what he saw on the internet was the price situation as at 2005which would not contain maintenance and training costs factored in formany of the contracts in issue.He stated that in 2005 he had about 3 years experience in procurement andthat the contract documents relied on by him were available but notproduced in court.He further stated that the total yardstick for assessing the contract prices wasprovided by PW6 and that he personally visited the site of agenda item 13 ofexhibit D2 with PW3.He agreed that he was not the sole electrical engineer in the committee anddid not work with exhibit D2 or any minutes or document prepared by theboard but instead used the bill of quantities and contract award papers.Further cross-examined for the 2nd defendant he stated that he did not knowthe capacity in which the defendants were charged or whether they were alsoNPA contractors.He insisted that his task in the committee included verification of prices.Cross-examined further for the 3rd defendant he agreed that appraisal officersin NPA fixed prices and not the board.Learned counsel for the 4th and 5th defendants adopted previous cross-examinations of the other counsel and in answer to the additional cross-examination for the 6th defendant he stated that the inflation of item 4 in 58
  • 59. exhibit P1A is included in the report and that he was not aware of the pricesapproved by the board.When re-examined he stated that he limited his search on the internet toprices and did not consider staff training and maintenance.With the consent of all defence counsel PW3 was recalled by theprosecution and he tendered the extra judicial statements made to the EFCCby the 2nd defendant and they were admitted as exhibits P19 and P20respectively.He was not cross-examined by all the defence counsel and with his evidencethe prosecution closed its case.The defence opted to call evidence and the 1st defendant testified from thewitness box as the sole defence witness.He is Chief Olabode George an engineer and company director whodescribed himself as a politician by vocation.In his evidence in chief he traced his academic background and professionalexperience in the Nigerian Navy until his retirement and his political careerin civil life afterwards.From 2001 to 2003 he was the Chairman of the Board of directors of theNPA and the other defendants were some of the directors who served withhim on the said board. He listed those who served as members of his boardincluding PW4 who were however left out of the present trial by theprosecution.On being inaugurated they were briefed by the secretary of the board whogave then the enabling Act, standing orders of the board and the approvedexpenditure limits. His perusal of the said enabling Act made it clear to himthat the sole authority representing the government to which the board wasanswerable was the Minister of Transport.Using exhibit D4 as example he pointed out that the standardcommunication between the Minister of Transport and the NPA is throughthe Managing Director of the NPA.He stated that he understood the counts dealing with alleged splitting ofcontracts and denied he or the board he was part of, ever doing so. He used 59
  • 60. agenda 12 of exhibit D2 as an example to show how contracts werepresented to the board by the executive director in charge of the userdepartment with a recommendation based on the appraised price andeventually the resolution to award without splitting coming into thediscussion.He similarly denied the counts dealing with alleged inflation of contractsstating emphatically that no such act was undertaken by the board overwhich he presided as they never added to any recommended price.He explained the functions of appraisal officers within the NPA stating thatthey had responsibilities for issues relating to consideration of quotationsand recommendation of prices of items presented to the board for approval,the board had no responsibility to determine fair prices and only workedwith recommended prices of management.On allegations of awarding contracts beyond approval limits he stated onceagain that he understood the counts and explained what constituted theapproval limits of the various contract awarding levels in the NPA based onthe guidelines given to them on assumption of office and which stilloperated till date.According to him, the responsibility for setting approval limits rested withthe Minister of Transport in consultation with the President and that due toits commercial and sensitive nature, subject to the directives of the Minister,NPA had financial autonomy.He was shown exhibit P3 and he was emphatic that it was not the approvallimit he received from the Minister of Transport and that he and the otherdefendants never got the said document whilst in office and neveracknowledged receiving it. When PW4 brought a copy of the said circular totheir attention, they felt it was irregular not having been forwarded under thehands of the Minister of Transport to the Managing Director and that it wasadministrative since it was signed by the Finance Minister.When referred to the portion of exhibit D2, the board minutes where exhibitP3 was discussed, he stated that the said portion of the minutes was incorrectand gave his own version of what transpired at the said meeting.He stated that no contract was awarded at the meeting where exhibit P3 wascirculated and discussed and no response was received to their letter to the 60
  • 61. Minister of Transport on the said exhibit P3 asking for clarifications asimplementation would have crippled the NPA considering its complexnature and the highly intensive expenditure profile.He explained steps taken by the board to secure mobilization fees approvedon contracts and denied ever receiving exhibit P2. He also denied anyconspiracy to disobey lawful instructions as alleged.Under cross-examination for the 2nd defendant he explained the complex andinternational implications of the operations of the NPA and the expected roleof the board under the NPA Act.He gave the names of other members of the board who were left out of thecharge by the prosecution including PW4 who according to him neverobjected to any of their decisions.He was shown exhibit P3 and he pointed out that it has the stamp of theFederal Ministry of Water Resources insisting that the 2 nd defendant neverreceived any such document to his knowledge.He further stated that no other contract was approved after exhibit P3 wasreceived and discussed and that exhibit D4 which they relied on came fromthe Minister of Transport and preceded the appointment of all the defendantsto the NPA board and also conformed with exhibit D6 the brief from thelegal adviser of the board and exhibit D5 which was still in use in NPA as at2008.He stated that the board did not confer a unilateral approval limit on itselfand that the reasons adduced for not complying with exhibit P3 weregenuine.He denied all the counts and insisted that the board in which all thedefendants served never inflated nor split any contract as alleged and madecopious references to the minutes.Further cross-examined for the 3rd defendant he explained the processes acontract would have passed through from the user department before gettingto the board for approval asserting that the board did not appraise prices andnever engaged in contract splitting or inflation. 61
  • 62. Under cross-examination for the 4th defendant, he explained the economicimplications of compliance with exhibit P3 and stated that clarificationsought from the Minister of Transport on the said circular was neverreceived in any form.Cross-examined for the 5th defendant, he stated that he was never aware ofthe requirement for due process teams to be in place and only became awarein the course of the testimony of PW6 and insisted that NPA had a priceintelligence unit in every department.And when cross-examined for the 6th defendant, he once again outlined thecomplex and financially intensive nature of NPA activities and once againdenied any incidence of contract splitting and further explained why exhibitP3 would not apply to the NPA.Under final cross-examination from the lead prosecutor, Mr. Keyamo, hestated that apart from the documents given at inauguration by the legaladviser of NPA he never sought nor obtained any additional document onthe powers and functions of the board.He was shown exhibits D2 and D3 he admitted that unless corrected at anysubsequent meeting they represented what transpired at the meetings.When his attention was drawn to the aspect of the minutes relating to theconsideration of exhibit P3 he disputed the minutes as recorded but wasunable to show where objection was taken before the said minutes wereadopted at a subsequent meeting as contained in exhibit D3.He explained the rationale for the steps taken by the board and insisted thatthey never disobeyed but only sought clarification.He agreed that exhibit P3 did not contradict the NPA Act but only felt itwould run the NPA aground if implemented.He insisted that no letter from the Minister of Transport accompanied thecopy of exhibit P3 brought to the meeting by PW4 and that the minutes wereincorrect in that regard.He confirmed that the clarification or waiver sought from the Minister ofTransport was never received but they continued to subsequently awardcontracts using the previous approval guideline since no directive wasreceived otherwise and to protect the best interest of the nation. 62
  • 63. He stated that he would not know whether proposals brought for approval bymanagement were either inflated or split although the board thoroughlyscrutinized the proposals even if the minutes did not so reflect as normallyminutes only carry essential details although he admitted not objecting toany of the proposals since he felt the proposals had been professionallytreated prior to presentation before the board.He further agreed with the learned lead prosecutor that the board had a dutyto be satisfied with management‟s proposals before granting approval.He denied being aware of the legal stipulations for setting up of due processteams with him as the head in NPA, insisting that NPA had adequate priceintelligence units and auditing processes.He asserted that he never had any discussion with appraisal officers in NPAand never invited any one of them to appear before the board to defend anyproposal as their operation fell within the purview of management which theboard would not bypass.He agreed with the learned lead prosecutor that he was answerable to thepresident as instructions from the Minister of Transport invariably amountsto the President‟s instructions and that although they did not doubt theauthenticity of PW4‟s instruction when he brought up exhibit P3, theyhowever felt it contained a lapse which needed clarification.He denied that the board unilaterally raised its approval levels as under theNPA Act it must defer to the Minister of Transport on financial issues.He insisted that he and the other defendants had no responsibilities asregards the splitting or inflation of contracts since it never took place at theirboard meetings although he agreed that if splitting was obvious on the faceof a contract, he had a duty to stop it.He was shown from exhibit D1 that there were other alleged violations ofexhibit P3 as regards mobilization payment but he denied ever disobeyingthe said circular. He further denied approving any split or inflated contracts.When re-examined by his lead counsel he said exhibit P3 did not reflect allthe approval levels in NPA and made inadequate provisions therebynecessitating clarifications. 63
  • 64. His evidence was adopted by each of the other defendants and the caseproceeded to the final addresses of counsel.As provided by Section 273 (2) of the Criminal Justice Administration Lawof Lagos State, 2007 all the counsel reduced their final addresses intowriting and later adopted and argued them in open court beginning with Mr.Ayanlaja (SAN) the learned lead Counsel for the 1st defendant.In adopting his written address which incidentally was co-signed by all theother defence counsel, the learned senior counsel in addition canvassed anew line of argument orally.He submitted that from the evidence adduced, the defendants were notcharged in their personal capacities but as Chairman and members of theboard of the NPA and that the board of the NPA is not a public officeralthough the defendants may be public officers in their personal capacities.According to him, failure to show that the board of the NPA is a publicofficer is therefore fatal to the prosecution‟s case.He further argued that since the defendants acted jointly as a board theymust be so treated and if treated as a board they are agents for theircorporation and cannot be held culpable personally.He referred to Section 1 of the NPA Act and Section 65 of the Companiesand Allied Matters Act.He also submitted that since members of the board of NPA are statutorilystipulated, by leaving out certain members of the said board whoparticipated in the alleged infractions, the prosecution had committed a fatalerror as thereby the proper defendant was not fully constituted before theCourt. He submitted further that exhibit P1 cannot be validly used as proof in thiscase in the absence of the evidence relied on to arrive at the conclusionstherein as facts leading to conclusions must be before the Court.In the substantive written address he summarized the evidence adduced byboth sides and submitted four issues for determination as follows: 64
  • 65. (a) Whether the prosecution proved the allegations of inflation of contracts contained in Counts 1-7 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Whether the prosecution proved the allegations of abuse of office by splitting of contracts contained in Counts 58-68 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Whether the prosecution proved the allegations of disobedience of lawful orders contained in Counts 9-57 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (d) Whether the prosecution proved the allegation of conspiracy to disobey lawful orders contained in Count 8 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.Arguing the first issue he submitted that onus of proof in the case is on theprosecution who must prove every ingredient of each offence alleged andthat standard is proof beyond reasonable doubts.He referred to ADISA VS STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 168) 490 at 504,BAKARE VS STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 52) 579 andARAN VS STATE (2001) 5 NWLR (PT 706) 256 at 269.He then proceeded to set out the ingredients of the offence created in Section22 (3) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000contained in counts 1-7 as being that the prosecution must prove that thedefendants are public officers, that they acted in the course of their officialduties, that there was a market price or professional standard prevailing atthe time the offences were allegedly committed and that the defendantsinflated the price of goods and services above the said prevailing marketprice or professional standard.He examined the definition of public officers as contained in the CorruptPractices and Other Related Offences Act and conceded that the prosecutionappeared to have established that defendants were public officers and furtherconceded that they acted in the course of their official duties.He however submitted that the prevailing prices adduced by the prosecutionwitnesses were not shown to have been available to the defendants at thematerial time they awarded the contracts in question and that accepting thelater computation of the market prices of the prosecution witnesses wouldamount to retroactive application of the provisions of the law as all the 65
  • 66. ingredients of the alleged offence were not present at the time the allegedoffence was committed.He referred to UDOH VS OTHORPAEDIC HOSPITAL MANAGEMENTBOARD & ORS (1993) 7 NWLR (PT 304) 139 at 149.He submitted further that from the minutes of the board meetings before theCourt, the only prevailing price available to the defendants at the time ofaward of the said contracts was the one provided by the management of theNPA which has the duty to so advise and that the defendants were not awareat that time of the prevailing prices now canvassed by the prosecutionwitnesses.He finally submitted on this issue that nothing was shown in the minutesindicating an increase in the prices recommended by management and thateven if the recommended prices were shown to have been inflated theinflation was not by the defendants who never went beyond any appraisedprices recommended to them and always awarded below contractors‟quotations.He urged the Court to also consider the disparities in the dates on thesecounts and hold that they were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.Moving to his second issue the learned Senior Advocate outlined therelevant provisions of the enabling law for Counts 58 to 68 and submittedthat the essential ingredients to be proved by the prosecution are that thedefendants were employed in the public service, that they did or directed anarbitrary act to be done and that what they did or directed to be doneamounted to an abuse of the authority of the defendants‟ office.He examined the definition of public officers in the Criminal Code andconceded that it embraced the defendants he then went ahead to consider theallegation of splitting of contracts and submitted that nothing was shownfrom the minutes of the board meetings indicating that the defendants at anypoint in time split one contract into two or several parts.He submitted that if indeed any splitting took place, it was before the saidcontracts were presented before the defendants and extended his argumentfurther by stating that even if there was splitting of contracts by thedefendants it would not amount to an arbitrary act as envisaged in theSection of the law under which the defendants were charged. 66
  • 67. He referred to OJUADE VS IGP (1964) ANLR 495 at 496.He also submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged acts ofthe defendants were prejudicial to the rights of the Minister of Transport orthe Federal Executive Council.He referred to an Indian High Court decision THE KING VSDARBARILAL SHAW ALL INDIA REPORT (1949) Vol. 36 (Calcutta)677.He urged the Court to note that no evidence of fraud alleged in the Countswas adduced and that there was a discrepancy in the dates shown on Count58 and in totality hold that the prosecution has failed to prove these countsbeyond reasonable doubt as well.Arguing his third issue which relates to Counts 9-57 contrary to Section 203of the Criminal Code he once again outlined the relevant Section andsubmitted that the ingredients to be proved are that the defendants disobeyeda lawful order, that the lawful order was issued by a person authorized byany Order, Act, Law or Statute subject to the valid defence that thedefendants have lawful excuse to disobey the lawful orders the onus of proofof which lies on them and that there is an Order, Act, Law or Statute whichexpressly provides a mode of proceeding against the defendants fordisobeying the order and such proceeding is exclusive of all otherpunishment.He urged the Court to adequately interpret the relevant Section andsubmitted that the prosecution failed to show the existence of any Law underwhich the author of exhibit P3 acted and that the order pursuant to which thedefendants could be held liable for disobeying must have emanated fromsome legislative quarters or contain such flavor which was not shown in thiscase.He referred to PDP VS INEC (2001) 1 WRW 1 at 34.He further submitted that exhibit P3 was not shown to have emanated from aperson so authorized as the Federal Government of Nigeria or the FederalMinistry of Finance is not a person envisaged within the meaning of the saidSection 203 of the Criminal Code.He referred to PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY VS LONDON ANDPROVINCIAL SUPPLY ASSOCIATION (1879-80) AC 857 andTHE KING VS DARBARILAL SHAW (supra) at 679. 67
  • 68. He submitted that the defendants can only be held liable for disobeying anorder they were aware of and that the evidence of PW4 and the 1st defendantshow that the said circular exhibit P3 was not formally served on thedefendants using the proper line of Communication.He then submitted that even if the defendants were shown to have disobeyedthey had shown lawful excuse as envisaged by Section 203 of the CriminalCode. On what constitutes lawful excuse he referred to WONG POOH YINVS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (1955) AC 91 andCAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL VS RUST (1972) 3 AER 232at 237.He urged the Court to consider the entire circumstances relating to the saidcircular exhibit P3 which he listed and hold that there was sufficient lawfulexcuse to disobey exhibit P3.He submitted that the prosecution failed to show the mode of proceedingagainst the defendants for disobeying exhibit P3 thereby depriving thedefendants of a possible defence and that in the event the defendants areeven found guilty, prison terms are inappropriate for that class of offence.Specifically on the issue of mobilization fees, he submitted that the award inCounts 49-51preceded the notification of exhibit P3 and on Counts 52 – 57he submitted in addition that the operation of exhibit P3 would have groundthe Ports, that the prosecution failed to show that mobilization was actuallypaid out as alleged and that there existed lawful grounds for disobedience.In conclusion on this issue he urged the Court to reject the prosecution‟scase on the Counts showing dates preceding the notification of exhibit P3, toalso similarly reject the Counts with irregular dates and in totality uphold thesubmissions of the defence.Moving to his final issue which deals with Conspiracy under Section 517alleged in Count 8, Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) once more referred to the Sectioninvolved and outlined the legal ingredients thereof.He referred to BALOGUN VS A.G. OGUN STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (PT733) 331 at 346-347,OLADEJO VS STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT 348) 101 at 127 andAMADI VS STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 646. 68
  • 69. He adopted his earlier arguments on the main Counts and submitted that theCount of conspiracy cannot be sustained as well.He urged the Court to further hold that the Count is bad as all the ingredientsof the offence were not contained therein and the alleged conspiracy wassaid to have taken place prior to the notification of exhibit P3.He referred to HAVANA & ORS VS STATE (1972) 7 NSCC 550 at 559.He urged the Court to hold that the prosecution failed in all the counts andaccordingly discharge and acquit the defendants on all counts.The address was adopted by each of the other defence Counsel with eachone of them emphasizing various aspects thereof.For the prosecution, Mr Keyamo the lead Counsel equally adopted hisearlier filed and served written address.Before going into the details however, he responded to the new issues raisedorally by the defence.He submitted that having admitted in their joint written address that thedefendants are public officers, the defence counsel were estopped fromarguing otherwise.He stated that the definition of public officers contained in Section 2 of theCorrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act must apply and that thesaid Section includes natural persons employed as directors on the boards ofpublic corporations who could be charged for alleged criminal infractionsapart from the corporate bodies they worked for.He submitted that the defendants are being prosecuted for alleged criminalinfractions committed while in office and that where there are multipleoffenders, there is a prosecutorial discretion as to who to prosecute.He further submitted that adopting the arguments urged by the defencecounsel on this issue will create an absurdity.He then proceeded to the arguments in his written address and adopted theissues for determination formulated by the defence counsel. 69
  • 70. Arguing the first issue which relates to Counts 1-7, he identified the basicingredients of the alleged offence as being that the defendant must be apublic officer, that the act complained of must have been done in the courseof his official duties and that he must have inflated the price of any goods orservices above the prevailing market price or professional standards.He submitted that the defendants have admitted the first two ingredientsleaving out the third and outlined the various pieces of evidence adduced bythe prosecution witnesses in proof of these counts which according to thelearned counsel showed the prevailing prices from 2001 to 2003 and whichevidence was not rebutted by the defence and should be accepted by theCourt.He further submitted that the defendant cannot be absolved from blamesimply by asserting that the alleged inflation did not take place before thembut at an earlier stage before presentation to them as they must be made totake responsibility as the approving authority which is the target of the lawin issue.He referred to Section 22 (3) of the Corrupt Practices and Other RelatedOffences Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Code.He further submitted that circumstantial evidence would suffice to proof thatthe defendants were aware of the prevailing market price at the time andreferred toMOHAMMED VS STATE (2007) 13 NWLR (PT 1050) 186 andAIGBADION VS STATE (2000) 7 NWLR (PT 666) 686 at 705.He urged the Court to consider Section 5 (1) of the First Schedule to thePorts Act and hold that the defendants had powers to confirm the prevailingprices at every point in time but failed to use it as shown from their minutesexhibits D1, D2 and D3 which the Court must take as correct and which theCourt will not allow oral evidence to contradict.He referred to SOKWO VS KPONGBO (2003) 2 NWLR (PT 803) 111 at154.He submitted that the prices in evidence by the prosecution witnesses werethe prevailing prices in 2001 to 2003, that exhibits D2 and D3 did not on theface thereof show inflation of prices and that Counts 2-7 contained the daysof the final award of the contracts consequent on the earlier approval of thedefendants. 70
  • 71. He referred to ABOGEDE VS STATE (1996) NWLR (PT 448) 270.He urged the Court to convict the defendants as charged on Counts 1-7.He then moved on to the second issue relating to alleged splitting ofcontracts contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code contained in Counts58 – 68.He identified the ingredients of the alleged offence as being that the personmust be employed in the public service, he must have done or directed anarbitrary act to be done, he must have abused his authority by so doing ordirecting to be so done and the arbitrary act must be prejudicial to the rightsof another.The first ingredient not being in contention, he referred to the testimonies ofPW5 and PW6 and exhibits P1, P1A, D1, D2, D3, P4 and P5 to show thesplit contracts which constitute arbitrary acts done in abuse of office andprejudicial to the rights of others.He submitted that split contracts are obvious on the face thereof and theapproving authority cannot be absolved from responsibility in respectthereto.He offered a definition of „arbitrary acts‟ and submitted that prejudice occursthe moment a superior authority is denied the opportunity to exercise hispowers.He further submitted that splitting here is not just from a resolution of theboard to do so but from the act of approving split contracts.He urged the Court to discountenance the cases of OJUADE VS IGP (supra)and KING VS DARBARILAL SHAW (supra) relied on by the defence asbeing inapplicable.On count 58 said to contain an irregular date he once again submitted thatthe Count reflects the date of award which is a consequence of thedefendants‟ approval.He urged the Court to convict the defendants as charged on these counts aswell. 71
  • 72. He then moved to the third issue which involves allegations of disobedienceof lawful orders contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code contained inCounts 9-57.He identified the ingredients here as the existence of a lawful order issued byany person authorized by any Order, Act, Law or Statute, that the defendantmust have disobeyed the said order and that the defendant has no excusepermitted by law to so disobey the order and if he pleads any excuse then hemust prove it.On the first ingredient, he submitted that exhibit P3 is the order involvedwhich emanated from a Minister and indirectly from the President asadmitted by the 1st defendant and which the NPA board was bound tocomply with.He referred to Section 124 of the Nigerian Ports Authority Act.He submitted further that pursuant to Section 148 of the Constitution, thePresident through the Federal Executive Council is a person authorized bylaw to issue exhibit P3 which applies to the NPA as a Federal GovernmentAgency and that once the issuing authority is lawful the mode of conveyingit is irrelevant and compliance is mandatory.He then submitted that exhibit P3 satisfies all the requirements of Section203 of the Criminal CodeHe referred to ABUBAKAR VS B.O. & A.P LTD (2007) 18 NWLR (PT1066) 319 at 384.He submitted that the facts adduced and not disputed by the defence showsthat the defendants willfully disobeyed the order in question and that theexcuses given by the defendants are not justified or permitted by law.He referred to Section 18 (1) of the Interpretation Act,Sections 22-36 of the Criminal Code,Section 150 (1) of the Evidence Act andAMACO VS STATE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT 399) 11 at 32.He made copious references to exhibit D2 and D3 and submitted that it wastoo late in the day for the defendants to deny receipt of exhibit P3 or evendeny the correctness of the minutes exhibit D2 and urged the Court to holdthat the defendants were shopping for excuses to justify their disobedience toexhibit P3. 72
  • 73. He submitted that since exhibit P3 did not stipulate punishment, Section 203of the Criminal Code was not excluded and that having failed to prove theexistence of a lawful excuse the Court should find the defendants guilty ascharged.He referred to Section 143 of the EVIDENCE ACT.Responding to certain points raised by the defence on this issue, Mr.Keyamo submitted that it was too late in the day to raise any formal defect inthe charge and that defendants were never misled especially when the defectcomplained of was not an essential component for a valid charge.He referred to Section 74 of the EVIDENCE ACT,FRN VS ADEWUNMI (2007) 10 NWLR (PT 1042) 399 at 411,SHEKETE VS NAF (2007) 14 NWLR (PT 1053) 159 at 169,NDUKWE VS LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (PT 1026) 1 at 12 andMUSA VS COP (2004) 9 NWLR (PT 879) 483 at 497.He submitted further that Section 203 of the Criminal Code envisagesnumerous kinds of lawful orders and that „person‟ as referred to thereinincludes offices and institutions not just natural persons and that the cases ofPHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY VS LONDON AND PROVINCIALSUPPLY ASSOCIATION (supra) and THE KING VS DARBARILALSHAW (supra) referred to by the defence are inapplicable.He also submitted that having admitted receiving copies of exhibit P3, theissue of the stamp on the copy tendered in Court would be of no moment.He referred to MENAKAIYA VS MENAKAIYA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT 472)256.He submitted further that failure to adhere to the portion of exhibit P3relating to payment of mobilization fees confirmed the willfulness of thedefendant in disobeying the said order as compliance therewith was nevershown to be detrimental in any way.He urged the Court to reject the excuses of the defendants and convict thedefendants as charged in respect of these Counts.Moving to the fourth and final issue relating to Conspiracy pursuant toSection 517 of the Criminal Code, the learned lead prosecutor once againoutlined the ingredients and referred to the aspect of exhibit D2 relating to 73
  • 74. the discussion of exhibit P3 and submitted that the ingredients thereof hadbeen fully proved.He urged the Court to convict the defendants as charged and referred toOYAKHIRE VS STATE (2005) 15 NWLR (PT 947) 159 at 178.He submitted that the defendants understood the count and were not misledand that the irregularity in the date is of no consequence since the words „onor about‟ were used to qualify the dates.He urged the Court to hold that the prosecution has proved all the Countsbeyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convict the defendants as chargedon all the Counts.The defence Counsel filed a joint reply on points of law which was jointlyadopted with the lead senior counsel for the 1st defendant, Mr Ayanlaja(SAN) leading the arguments.On his first issue, he submitted that reports of committees set up by theFederal Government are of no probative value unless accepted by thegovernment through a white paper.He referred to ALHAJI ABDULAHI VS HASHIDU (1999) 4 NWLR (PT600) 638 at 639,COOKEY VS JUMBO (2005) 5 SC (PT 11) 102 at 118 andOMEGA VS OBC (2005) 21 SCNQR 771 at 800.He further submitted that the law only punishes the offender and would notadmit of vicarious punishment as advocated by the prosecution in respect ofapproval of contracts inflated and split by some other persons other thandefendants.He referred to MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED VSUMENWEKE (2002) 9 NWLR (PT 773) 543 at 561,OBADE VS THE STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (PT 198) 438 at 455 andACB VS OKONKWO (1997) 1 NWLR (PT 480) 194 at 207-208.On the second issue he reiterated that the defendants cannot be vicariouslypunished and submitted that the learned prosecutor cannot replace evidenceadduced with his submission.He referred to IBIKUNLE VS STATE (2007) 2 NWLR (PT 1019) 546 andOLANIYAN VS ADENIYI (2007) 3 NWLR (PT 1020) 1. 74
  • 75. He repeated his earlier arguments and submitted that ABOGEDE VSSTATE (supra) referred to by the learned prosecutor was inapplicable.Moving to the third issue he submitted that disobedience to an administrativeproceeding cannot lead to criminal sanctions and that the order in questiondid not emanate from a body known to law and cannot be binding on theNPA.He referred to Section 124 of the NPA Act,A.G FEDERATION VS ANPP (2004) 1 MJSC 1 at 16,FAWEHINMI VS NBA (No 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (PT 105) 58 andMCFOY VS UAC (1962) AC 152.He further submitted that failure to tender the letter presented to thedefendants in respect of exhibit P3 creates a lacunae which in thecircumstances leaves the Court to speculate about its existence, an exercisethe Court must never embark upon.He referred to UBN VS AYODARE & SONS NIG. LTD (2007) 13 NWLR(PT 1052) 567 andNASCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD VS A.N. AMACOTRANSPORT (2002) FWLR (PT 135) 652 at 677.He urged the Court to reject the contention of the prosecution and hold thatthe defence made no admission and had lawful excuses not to have compliedwith exhibit P3.On the fourth issue he submitted that once the prosecution failed on the thirdissue, they must fail on this issue as well and that the irregular date wouldlead to miscarriage of justice.He referred to ALK VS R (1963) AC 160.He urged the Court to discharge and acquit the defendants on all the Counts.I have duly considered the cases presented for the parties and thesubmissions of counsel.I shall also adopt the issues for determination formulated by Mr. Ayanlaja(SAN) learned lead defence counsel and adopted by Mr. Keyamo the learnedlead prosecutor. 75
  • 76. Onus of proof is on the prosecution in line with section 36 (5) of theConstitution and Section 138 of the Evidence Act, and the standard of proofrequired to justify a conviction is one beyond reasonable doubt.This level of proof is attained when every ingredient, which constitutes thealleged offence, has been proved.See AYUB-KHAN VS STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 172) 127,ADIGUN VS A.G. OYO STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 53) 678 andEDE VS FRN (2001) 1 NWLR (PT 695) 502 at 515.I must however begin by considering certain points raised orally in thecourse of the adoption of the final addresses which are fundamental in natureand which if resolved in favor of the defence may substantially determinethe entire case.It may be noteworthy to point out that raising some of these issues orallyoutside the written addresses already filed and exchanged as was done by thelearned lead defence counsel is irregular as it could prejudice the other partywho had no notice and was in court only to expound on the already filedwritten addresses.However, since the prosecution had responded and also because the Courtmust accommodate every defence put forward by the defendant to a criminalcharge, the said points would be considered on their merits.The first point in this regard is the submission that the defendants were notcharged in their personal capacities but as members of the board of the NPAand that unless shown that the board of the NPA is a public officer, theyshould be acquitted.To this the learned lead prosecutor responded that the defendants were notcharged as a board but as persons who were members of the board ofdirectors of the NPA and that as such they were properly before the Court asformer public officers.Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act providesa definition of public officers as follows:“Public officer means a person employed or engaged in any capacity in thepublic service of the Federation, State or Local Government, publiccorporation or private company wholly or jointly floated by any government 76
  • 77. or its agency, including the subsidiary of any such company whether locatedwithin or outside Nigeria and includes judicial officers serving inmagistrate‟s area or customary courts or tribunals.”Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the operative words in it shouldbe given their simple, ordinary, grammatical meaning.See OMOYENI VS GOV. EDO STATE (2004) 5 NWLR (PT 865) 175 andARAKA VS EGBUE (2003) 17 NWLR (PT 848) 1.The facts indisputably before the Court are that the defendants are naturalpersons who were appointed to serve as directors on the board of the NPA apublic corporation owned solely by the Federal Government of Nigeria andestablished under an Act of the National Assembly, the Nigerian PortsAuthority Act 38 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the NPA Act).It is an evident fact upon which the Court can take judicial notice that onlynatural persons are appointed to hold public offices and not corporate orincorporate bodies.Furthermore, the board of a corporation is an organ of that organization anddoes not possess a corporate legal existence separate from that of thecorporate body it belongs to. It cannot as such possess legal identity as to sueor be sued independently.At common law for purposes of criminal liability, the corporate veil wouldgive way for the individuals acting for a corporate entity to be personallyliable for their activities.See TESCO SUPERMARKETS LTD VS NATRASS (1972) A.C 153 andR VS ICR HAULAGE LTD (1944) All ER 691.In the circumstances I hold that the defendants as persons who served asdirectors of a public corporation, the NPA are properly before the Court inthat capacity and are consequently public officers within the contemplationof the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act.The second point raised in this regard which is an extension of the first oneis that since the defendants are before the Court as the board of the NPAwhich has a statutory composition, by leaving a few of them out thedefendants are thereby not fully before the Court. 77
  • 78. To this the learned prosecutor responded that the defendants are before theCourt as individuals who served as members of the board of the NPA from2001 to 2003 and that the prosecution has a discretion on who to proceedagainst.As earlier held, the defendants are before the Court as persons who servedon the board of NPA from 2001 to 2003.The board of the NPA is inanimate and only individuals who serve asdirectors therein are tangible.From the various extra judicial statements of the defendants they were notappointed to the NPA board at the same time and what could only be said tobe uniform to them all is that they participated at the board meetings wherethe alleged offences being tried herein were supposedly committed.The defendants would not and cannot thereby become an indivisible entity.The decision as to who is to be proceeded against is a prosecutorialdiscretion which the Court cannot interfere with as it is derived from theConstitutional powers of the Attorneys General in this case the AttorneyGeneral of the Federation under Section 174 (1) of the Constitution.The said section of the Constitution provides as follows:“174 (1) The Attorney –General of the Federation shall have power – (a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria, other than a court-martial, in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly; (b) to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and (c) to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person.(2) The powers conferred upon the Attorney-General of the Federation undersubsection (1) of this section may be exercised by him in person or throughofficers of his department.”It is trite that at common law the Attorney- General is a law to himself andsubject to direction and control of no one in the exercise of his powers.See STATE VS ILORI & ORS (1983) 1 SCNLR 94 and 78
  • 79. A.G. KADUNA VS HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 8) 483 at 503.The Supreme Court also stated on another occasion that:“The Attorney-General of the Federation derives his powers under section174 of the Constitution as an agency of the Federal Government. The law iswell-established that the court cannot control the manner he exercises hispowers so conferred.”See A.G. ONDO STATE VS A.G. FEDERATION (2002) 9 NWLR (PT772) 222 at 419.Having thus established that the Attorney General has unfettered discretionin the conduct of criminal prosecutions within his purview, the next questionto be answered is whether by the exercise of this prosecutorial discretion inthis instance to leave out some of the alleged participis criminis in this case,the entire charge had been fatally flawed because the composition of theNPA board is statutorily stipulated.A perusal of the provisions of the NPA Act will indicate the composition ofthe board described as governing board in Section 2 thereof while Section 3of the first schedule which relates specifically to the Board provides thatquorum shall be the Chairman or one of the other members presiding andfour other members.The implication of this is that even if the arguments of the eminent learneddefence counsel is to be bought, the Board in accordance with the NPA Actis constituted with the presence of five members.However having held earlier that the defendants are charged for personalroles allegedly played by them while serving on the said NPA board, andhaving further held that there is a prosecutorial discretion as to who toprosecute, the issue of the defendants being before the Court as anindivisible board does not arise.In the entire circumstances therefore I cannot agree with the learned defencecounsel on this point as well.The next point of a preliminary nature also linked to the first two is that thedefendants acted as agents of a corporate body, the NPA and as such cannotbe held personally liable. 79
  • 80. Responding to this the learned prosecutor submitted that the defendants wereliable to be prosecuted for alleged criminal infractions committed while inoffice.The subject of criminal liability for corporate conduct is not as closed as thelearned defence counsel seem to be making it.It was considered by this court in FRN VS KINGSLEY IKPE (2005) 2QCCR 155 at 192-193.The corporate shield for personal criminal liability is no longer impregnable.Apart from the fact that the individual director could be held personallyliable for criminal infractions personally committed by him in office, wherethe conduct was attributed to the company he acted for, the corporate veilcould be lifted and where he is identified as the directing mind of thecorporate entity, he could face penal sanctions.Whereas the penalty on conviction for corporate bodies used to be simplyfines, there is a shift especially concerning serious offences that go beyondregulatory matters, for directing minds of the corporate entity to beidentified and made to serve prison terms while the company as an entity isfined.See TESCO SUPERMARKETS LTD VS NATRASS (supra) andR VS ICR HAULAGE LTD (supra).See also CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER- REFORMING THE LAWpublished in THE WHISTLES (Bulletin of Freedom to Care, ISSN 0969-2118) No 10 April 1996 particularly the papers of J Barrie Berkley, Vice-Chair of Disaster Action and Prof. Celia Wells, Professor of Law at CardiffLaw School, University of Wales.Taking it further, under the doctrine of „the responsible corporate officer,‟officers of a company would be liable for criminal violations committed bytheir subordinates if their position in the company gives them theresponsibility and authority to prevent or correct such a violation and theyfailed to do so.See UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277 (1943) andUNITED STATES V. PARK, 421 U.S. 658 (1975).See also „PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR CORPORATE FAULT‟ Report ofthe Corporations and Market Advisory Committee of the AustralianGovernment, 2006. 80
  • 81. I therefore hold that the defendants could be competently tried and if foundguilty convicted for any alleged criminal infraction said to have beencommitted by them while serving as directors of the NPA.The remaining point is as regards the evidential value of exhibit P1, thereport of the Ribadu Committee.The said document contains the findings of a Committee said to have beenset up by the Federal Government and which formed part of the materialsrelied on by the investigators of this case. That in my view is its limitedrelevance for the purposes of this trial. It is not the product of a trial and itsconclusions cannot be adopted by this Court.Trials have been described as the judicial examination and determination ofissues between the parties in accordance with the law of the land or of acause, either civil or criminal between the parties whether of law or factbefore a court that has proper jurisdiction.See KAJUBO VS. STATE (1988) NWLR (PT. 73) 712Conclusions reached by a Committee no matter the eminence of thecomposition cannot and should not be substituted for direct findings of atrial Court properly seised of a case.In this regard, the findings and conclusions contained in the documentexhibit P1 will not be substituted for the direct findings to be made in thiscase based on evidence properly adduced and admitted before the Court.I shall now proceed to the substance of the various Counts starting withthose in the first issue relating to allegations of inflation of contractscontrary to Section 22 (3) of the Corrupt Practices and Other RelatedOffences Act contained in Counts 1-7.The said section 22 (3) provides as follows:“Any public officer who in the course of his official duties, inflates the priceof any goods or services above the prevailing market price or professionalstandards, is guilty of an offence under this Act and liable on conviction toimprisonment for a term of seven (7) years and a fine of one million naira.”The ingredients to be established by the prosecution in this regard werecorrectly identified by counsel on both sides.The prosecution must show that the defendants were public officers; thatthey acted in the course of their official duties, and that while so acting 81
  • 82. officially, inflated the price of any goods or services above the prevailingmarket price or professional standard.The case of the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of their tenwitnesses and the various exhibits before the Court.All the prosecution witnesses are government officials who came intocontact with the facts of the case in the course of the performance of theirofficial duties and this includes PW4 who may be classified an accomplicefrom the nature of his role.None of them however had been alleged or shown to have any personal orpecuniary interest to serve. Their credibility is therefore not in issue.The defendants anchored their fate on the oral testimony of the 1st defendantand the documents they equally placed before the Court as exhibits. The 1stdefendant played a direct role in the facts leading to the case and chaired thevarious meetings of the board of directors of the NPA where the allegedinfractions forming the basis of the entire case supposedly took place whileall the remaining defendants participated as members of the board ofdirectors.Having earlier resolved that the defendants were public officers, it goeswithout saying from the evidence and submissions of both counsel that thedefendants acted in the course of their official duties.What appears to be in contention is whether there was inflation of contractsand if so whether the defendants could be held liable for it.By the ordinary wordings of the Act, inflation of goods or services can onlybe established against the benchmark of a prevailing market price orprofessional standard.All the items contained in each of Counts 1 to 7 in issue here, involvedprocurements, none is mere consultancy service as to require proof ofprofessional standards. This implies that what must be established are theprevailing market prices in respect of each of the contract items in theCounts which cannot be done by mere ipse dixit, it is documentary.Each of the items involved in the said counts were procured including that ofCount 1 which involves repair work as such there must be manufacturers ormanufacturers representatives. 82
  • 83. None of the documents tendered before the Court by the prosecutionprofesses to be a price list from any manufacturer.None of the 10 prosecution witnesses including PW6 and PW10 whospecifically handled prices told the Court what they did with specificreference to each of these Counts.Where a visit was indeed made as stated by these witnesses, then the officevisited must have a name and must be related to the specific item and Countinvolved. Contrary to the submissions of the learned lead prosecutor,documents such as exhibits P1, P1A, P4 and P5 are unhelpful to the Court inthis regard as they contain conclusions and summaries of exercisesconducted outside the face of the Court.For the conclusions therein to be accepted, the evidential basis thereof mustalso be placed before the Court.There ought to be ample documentary evidence and validation for suchdocuments. Such that witnesses from the manufacturers or manufacturers‟representatives would be presented in court or in the alternativeauthenticated documents from such sources detailing the applicable prices ofthe items involved would be tendered.Where repair works were made as in Count 1, evidence from the Companywhich carried out the repairs showing that what they did could have beendone for much less or evidence that similar repairs were done by them formuch less could have been gathered.The Court cannot and will not in the absence of evidence before it adopt theconclusions reached on a matter where the Court must come make up itsown mind. Presenting the authors of the exhibits in question for cross-examination is not a substitute for hard independent evidence as the issuehere goes beyond their oral assertions as earlier stated.PW6 and PW10 both admitted the existence of documents they worked withrelating to the prices of these contracts, which documents were kept awayfrom the Court.It is amazing that while the learned prosecutor correctly identified thenecessary legal ingredients of the offence created herein, he failed to beguided by them while leading evidence. 83
  • 84. Repeatedly under cross-examination the witnesses admitted to the existenceof the documents involved yet the said documents were kept away from theCourt by the prosecution.Unfortunately for the prosecution, the documents involved are not such asare in the range of notoriety which could make the Court take judicial noticeof them.By keeping them away from the Court, the prosecution has left the issue toconjectures.The inadequacy created is palpable and cannot be ignored. The lapse heremust enure to the defendants.In the circumstances I must come to the conclusion that the prosecutionfailed to establish the prevailing prices for the contracts said to have beeninflated in Counts 1 to 7 thereby making it impossible for the Court to assessthe basis for a conclusion that the contracts contained therein were indeedinflated as alleged.The said counts must therefore fail against the defendants.The second issue formulated by the parties is as regards whether theprosecution proved the allegations of abuse of office by splitting of contractscontrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code contained in Counts 58-68 ofthe amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.The said section 104 provides as follows:“Any person who, being employed in the public service, does or directs to bedone, in abuse of the authority of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial tothe rights of another is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable toimprisonment for two years.If the act is done or directed to be done for purposes of gain he is guilty of afelony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.A prosecution for any offence under this or any of the last three precedingsections shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of a lawofficer.”The legal ingredients of the offence created herein have also been correctlyidentified by the counsel on two sides. 84
  • 85. To succeed, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubts that thedefendants were employed in the public service, that they did or directed anarbitrary act to be done in abuse of the authority of their offices and that thearbitrary act was prejudicial to the rights of some other person.A guide was provided in Section 1 of the Criminal Code (the interpretationSection) as to who a person employed in the public service is.It provides as follows:“ „Person employed in the public service‟ means any person holding any ofthe following offices, or performing the duties thereof, whether as deputy orotherwise-(1) any civil office, the power of appointing a person to which or removing aperson from which is vested in the Civil Service Commission, or any Board;or (2) any office to which a person is appointed by or under the Constitution ofthe Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended or any enactment; or(3) any civil office, the power of appointing to which or of removing fromwhich is vested in any person or persons holding an office of any kindincluded in either of the two last preceding subheads of this section; or(4) any office of arbitrator or umpire in any proceeding or matter submittedto arbitration by order or with the sanction of any court, or in pursuance ofany enactment; or(5) a member of a commission of inquiry appointed under any Act or Law; and the said term further includes-(1) any justice of the peace;(2) any person employed to execute any process of a court;(3) all persons belonging to the military or police forces of Nigeria;(4) all persons in the employ of any Government department;(5) a person acting as a minister of religion of whatsoever denomination inso far as he performs functions in respect of the notification of intended marriage, or in respect of thesolemnization of marriage or in respect of the making and keeping of anyregister or certificate of marriage, birth, baptism, death or burial, but not inany other respect;(6) a person employed by a head chief in connection with any powers orduties exercised or performed by such chief under any Act or Law or withthe consent of the President or a Governor; 85
  • 86. (7) a person in the employ of a local authority;(8) a person in the employ of a Local Government Council in connectionwith any powers or duties exercised or performed by such LocalGovernment Council and in respect of the duties for which the employmentactually exists;”It is not in contest that the defendants were in accordance with Section 2 ofthe NPA Act appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeriato serve as Chairman and directors on the board of the NPA and that theycould be removed from that office by the President pursuant to Section 4 ofthe said Act. They thereby come within sub (3) in the above definition ofpersons employed in the public service.From the particulars of the various Counts involved here, Counts 58 to 68,the alleged acts said to have constituted the arbitrary acts resulting in abuseof office are contract splitting.From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the submissions of thelearned prosecutor, the sum total of the case of the prosecution is thatalthough no resolution to split any contract was passed by the board of theNPA constituted by the defendants, they did approve split contracts. Thatsplit contracts are easily identifiable as could be gleaned on perusal ofexhibits D2 and D3, the minutes of the meetings of the Board of directors ofthe NPA attended by the defendants and that by approving same, thedefendants committed the alleged offence.The prosecution further posited that contract splitting is an arbitrary actconstituting abuse of office in respect of which prejudice is automatic once asuperior authority is deprived the opportunity of exercising its legitimatefunction in relation to the contract involved.On the other hand, the defendants contended that they did not approve anysplit contract, that if at all any contract approved by them was split, thesplitting was not by the defendants and that it would amount to vicariouspunishment to hold the defendants liable for offences committed by others.It was further contended for the defence that contract splitting is not anarbitrary act that would constitute abuse of office and that even if it wasarbitrary no one was shown by the evidence adduced by the prosecution tohave been prejudiced. 86
  • 87. First, what is contract splitting?PW5 and PW6 gave evidence that contract splitting is a specialized termwithin the register of procurement in government circles. They both gavesimilar definitions.PW5 is a civil servant of about 28 years experience who had held varioussenior and sensitive positions in the Federal Civil Service while PW6 is aquantity surveyor of about 18 years experience who was a pioneer consultantin the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit and had workedsubsequently as an expert in procurement related areas in the Federal CivilService.In the words of PW5 “contract splitting simply means in governmentparlance an intention or deliberate intention to bring the approval limitwithin the threshold of the approving authority instead of taking it to thehigher approving authority.”PW6 was more elaborate saying “….there is a register term for splitting inprocurement ……………… I agree that in English, every profession has itsregister, and in procurement there are registers that are associated with it….I likened this with the building of the courtroom which has differentcomponents. In this regard, in government contracts, we don‟t award theroof separately, the wall separately and the fuse, we award this to acontractor and this case in question was awarded to one single contractor, inthree different contracts. So, that was why it was referred to as splitting andthe intention from the procurement procedure in such cases is to avoid athreshold and the threshold as far as the board is concerned is 20 million. Itis seen that the three components added up together, would exceed 20million and would exceed the approving limit of the board. So, in order forthe board to achieve the award, it had to split it into three, so that the sumtotal of each individual contract would fall below the approval limit of theboard. So, it enables the board to award the contract instead of a higherauthority, the ministerial tender board or the federal executive council…”From their perspective therefore, it can be described as the splitting ofcontracts with an intention to bringing it within the threshold of the approvallimit of the approving authority instead of taking it to the higher approvingauthority. 87
  • 88. The definition offered by the prosecution was not shown by the defence tobe incorrect under cross-examination and no competing piece of evidencegiving an opposing definition was provided. Having failed to providecontroverting definition and having failed to demonstrate the falsity orinvalidity of the definition provided by the prosecution, the defence isdeemed to have admitted and conceded the issue which lapse cannot beremedied in the final address of counsel.See OFFORLETTE VS STATE (2000) FWLR (PT 12) 2081 at 2102.I am therefore left with no choice than to accept the uncontroverteddefinition of contract splitting provided by the prosecution witnesses.Can it then be said that contract splitting is an arbitrary act?The word „arbitrary‟ was described as „depending on individual discretion‟.See BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY 8th Edition 112.According to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia „arbitrariness‟ is aterm given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment orpreference, based solely upon an individuals opinion or discretion.Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) urged the case of OJUADE VS IGP (supra) on thecourt as proposition that contract splitting cannot amount to an arbitrary actwithin the context of Section 104 of the Criminal Code.While Mr Keyamo argued to the contrary.The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts presentedbefore the Court in OJUADE VS IGP (supra) which had to do with bribery.From the understanding provided into the meaning of the word „arbitrary‟, itfollows that contract splitting is subject to no fixed rule but subject to thejudgment, preference or will of those engaging in it.I therefore agree with Mr. Keyamo that contract splitting is arbitrary.The next question is whether the splitting of contracts could be prejudicial tothe right of the higher approving authority without proof of such prejudicebeing provided. 88
  • 89. While the defence argued to the contrary stating that prejudice was notproved and citing an Indian High Court decision to persuade the Court, theprosecution asserted that prejudice here could be inferred.I am inclined to agree with the learned prosecutor that the moment a higherapproving body was deprived of the exercise of its legitimate functionprejudice has occurred.Can we then say that any of the contracts approved by the defendants wassplit as alleged by the prosecution in Counts 58 to 68 herein?The case of the prosecution was that the defendants approved obviously splitcontracts which could be deduced from the minutes of the meetings exhibitD2 and D3 if perused.The contract alleged to be split in Count 58 is for the supply of three (3)numbers of Cylinder rubber Fenders size 1000/500 x 500mm.A perusal of exhibits D2 and D3 shows a single contract resembling part ofthe particulars of the said Count but not identical with it in agenda item 21 ofexhibit D2. The contract did not reoccur anywhere else in the two minutes.Count 59 alleges a split of the supply of marine engine with (one) gearbox,GM 12V 71 series for its “Bonny” in Apapa Dockyard into two contracts tothe same contractor Mog Holdings Limited.In exhibit D2 agenda items 35 and 36 two contracts to the same contractorfor the supply of similar items to locations in the same Apapa Dockyardwere approved by the NPA board in which all the defendants participatedwith the 1st defendant presiding.The combined total amount of the said two contracts was $536,876.75 USD(Five Hundred and Thirty-six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-fiveUnited State of America dollars seventy five cents).The two contracts were awarded in October 2002 when by exhibit P9 theexchange rate of the US dollar to Naira was N126.75 which by simplearithmetic is well over N60 million.In Count 60 the supply of Terex Telescopic Mobile Crane (30 tons) forWarri Port Dockyard was alleged to have been split to 3 separate contracts ata total sum of $797,850.00 (Seven hundred and ninety-seven thousand, eighthundred and fifty United States of America Dollars). 89
  • 90. Agenda items 32, 33 and 34 of exhibit D2 indicate that at the same meeting,the board of the NPA presided over by the 1st defendant and attended by theother defendants approved three different contracts for supply of the sameitem Terex Telescopic Mobile Crane (30 tons) to the same location, WarriPort Dockyard each in the same amount of $265, 950.00.The total amount of the 3 contracts for the same item is $797,850.00 whichmultiplied by the October 2002 exchange rate of the dollar at N126.75 isover N100million.Count 61 alleges that one contract in the sum of $441,664.00 (Four Hundredand Forty-one Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Four United states ofAmerica dollars) for the supply of Cathodic Protection of Steel SheetPipewell of Berth 8 Tin- Can Island Port Lagos was split into two separatecontracts.Agenda items 19 and 20 of exhibit D2 indicate the approvals by thedefendants of two separate contracts for similar items to two locations in TinCan Island Port for the total sum alleged i.e. $441,664.00 which whenconverted at the then prevailing rate of N126.75 comes to over N55 million.The evidence of PW3 that his investigation revealed that the two companieswhich benefited from the said contracts belonged to the same individual wasnever controverted by the defence.Count 62 alleges that one contract in the sum of €807,840.00 (EightHundred and Seven Thousand, eight Hundred and Forty Euros) for thesupply of two (2) numbers Mafi Standard roll Tractors at Roro Port was splitinto two separate contracts.Items 15N of exhibit D3 indicate the approval by the defendant of the supplyof 2 Mafi tractors, 2 Mafi standard Roll Trailers and 2 Mafi Gooseneck foruse at RoRo Port while 15O in exhibit D3 indicate the approval by thedefendants of unspecified numbers of Mafi Tractors to the ContainerTerminal Port. The two contracts were for the same amount of 403.920Euros.Apart from the similarity in the amounts nothing else suggests that the itemsin the two contracts could have been awarded in the same contract. 90
  • 91. Count 63 alleges that one contract in the sum of €708,990.00 (SevenHundred and Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety Euros) for thesupply, installation and commissioning of 25m floor light poles with fittingat Kirikiri Lighter Terminal Phase 1 was split into two separate contracts andawarded to the same company.Agenda item 10 of exhibit D2 the minutes of 9th board meeting held in 2002indicate the approval by the defendant of a contract for part of the items inissue while the remainder was approved in item 15M in exhibit D3 theminutes of the 11th board meeting held in June 2003.This may not accord with the given definition of contract splitting as fromitem M of exhibit D3 the project appeared to have been embarked on instages.Count 64 alleges that one contract in the sum of €697,725.00 (Six Hundredand Ninety-seven Thousand, seven Hundred and Twenty five Euros) for thereplacement & installation of 11 KV High Tension (incomer, outgoingTransformer) panels with accessories at Tin Can Island Port was split.Items 15T and 15U in exhibit D3 indicate that the defendants approvedsimilar contracts to be performed at the same location in Tin Can Island Portfor the same amounts to the same contractor while exhibit 15P indicate asimilar contract to a different contractor at the same Port all supporting theparticulars of the Count.The said total amount of €697,725.00 when converted at the June 2003 CBNprevailing rate of N145.2532 to the Euro comes to over N100million.The specific evidence of PW6 asserting that the projects were in the samelocation and the corroborative evidence of PW3 that he visited the locationand confirmed the location to be the same and that the two companies the 3contracts were awarded to belong to the same individual, were nevercontroverted by the defence.Count 65 alleges that one contract in the sum of €472,500.00 (Four Hundredand seventy Two Thousand, five Hundred Euros) for the supply andcommissioning of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault Test Van with distancemeasurement tech & high tension instrument was split into two separatecontracts. 91
  • 92. Items 15Q and 15R of exhibit D3 indicate that two separate contracts for thesupply of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault Test Vans with distance measurementtech & high tension instrument for use at two different locations wereawarded for the same amounts at a total sum equal to the alleged€472,500.00 which when converted at the prevailing CBN rate ofN145.2532 comes to almost N70million.Count 66 alleges that one contract in the sum of £934,581.00 (Nine Hundredand Thirty-four Thousand, five hundred and Eighty-one British PoundSterling) for the supply of 1645KVA 11K, 3 (phase) 50Hz Generator sets,water-cooled Cummins Industrial Diesel engines operating at 1500 RPMcoupled with a Brushless Stanford Alternator, continuous output was splitinto four separate contracts.Agenda 13 of exhibit D2 indicates the approval of a generator of the allegedspecifications to complement the electricity supplies at Apapa PortsComplex generally in October, 2002 while item 15J in exhibit D3 indicatesanother approval in June 2003 for a similar generator to service theContinental Shipyard, Apapa specifically and 15K is the approval for aseparate contract for the supply and installation of control panel for the samegenerator at Continental Shipyard.The total sum for the first one is £211,090.00 while the total sum for theJune 2003 approvals is 519,096.00 an addition of which is far from the sumof 934,581.00 alleged in the said Count. The space of time between the twosets of approvals cannot also be ignored.Count 67 alleges that one contract in the sum of £869,575.02 (EightHundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, five Hundred and seventy-five Britishpound sterling two pence) for complete replacement of obsolete HighTension Panels with Breakers at S/S Tin-Can, Apapa was split.Agenda Items 16, 22, 23 and 24 of exhibit D2 all indicate approvals by thedefendants for complete replacement of obsolete high tension panels withbreakers at the same Tin Can Island Port for a total sum of well over N150million when converted at the then prevailing CBN rate of N197.666 to theBritish pound sterling.Count 68 alleges that one contract in the sum of £346,500 (Three hundredand Forty Six Thousand, Five Hundred British Pound Sterling) for the 92
  • 93. supply of Anti Pollution Equipments at Onne Port was split into twoseparate contracts.Agenda items 44, 45 and 46 of exhibit D2 indicate approvals for differenttypes of anti pollution equipments for use at Onne Port. In the absence ofevidence that the equipments are the same or that they could have beensupplied in a single contract, there is nothing upon which it could beconcluded that the items were split.I therefore hold that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that theContracts in Counts 58, 62, 63, 66 and 68 were split while I hold that there issufficient evidence before the Court that Counts 59, 60, 61, 64, 65 and 67were split.Furthermore, it is significant that the total sums of each of the contractsfound to have been split is in excess of all the approval limits before theCourt be it exhibits D4 and D5 the pre 2001 limit alluded to by thedefendants or exhibits D9 and P3 the pre and post 2001 limits contended bythe prosecution.Also, the presentations in respect of the split items were made in manyinstances sequentially and were not obscured as to deceive the discerningmind. This implies that these splits were obvious and could have beendiscovered and queried if good faith were at play.This now leaves the major argument of the defence as to whether thedefendants as board members could be held liable for actions perpetrated bytheir subordinates for according to them it is only logical and in accord withprimordial wisdom that it is the offending finger that would be severed bythe monarch.The response of the prosecution was that the defendants‟ activities ingranting approval brought them within the degree of culpability envisaged inSection 7 of the Criminal Code.Section 7 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:“7. When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemedto have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence,and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say- 93
  • 94. (a) every person who actually does the act or makes the omission whichconstitutes the offence; (b) every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose ofenabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; (c) every person who aids another person in committing the offence; (d) any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit theoffence. In the fourth case he may be charged either with himself committingthe offence or with counselling or procuring its commission. A conviction ofcounselling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the sameconsequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence. Any person who procures another to do or omit to do any act of such anature that, if he had himself done the act or made the omission, the act oromission would have constituted an offence on his part, is guilty of anoffence of the same kind, and is liable to the same punishment, as if he hadhimself done the act or made the omission; and he may be charged withhimself doing the act or making the omission.”It is not contested that the defendants sitting as directors on the board of theNPA had a duty to scrutinize contracts presented before them for approval.Failure of the defendants to do this will amount to an omission on their partand where an offence is disclosed to have been occasioned by theiromission, I agree with Mr. Keyamo that it would bring them within thecontemplation of the above quoted Section 7 as being directly culpable.This accords with the doctrine of „the responsible corporate officer‟ earlieralluded to in this judgment.This doctrine was introduced by the Supreme Court of the United States ofAmerica in 1943 in the case of UNITED STATES VS DOTTERWEICH(supra).In that case, the President of a drug repackaging company was charged withviolating the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, althoughhe was not aware that some drugs sold by his company were mislabeled, theCourt extended liability to him.Later in the 1975 case of UNITED STATES V. PARK (supra), the sameCourt set out the elements of a responsible corporate officer‟s liability. 94
  • 95. Officers would be liable for a criminal violation if their position in thecompany gives them the responsibility and authority to prevent or correct aviolation and if they failed to do so.Generally the court must find that the defendant performed a wrongful act orfailed to take action to prevent a wrongful act; under the doctrine, the acts ofjunior employees are thereby imputed to the officers.See JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY, published forNorthwestern University School of Law by University of Illinois Press, 1325S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Available atwww.law.nwu.edu/depts/legalpub/jclc/subscriptions/.Section 2 (2) of the NPA Act provides that the Chairman and members ofthe board shall “be persons with proven integrity and with relevant cognitiveexperience” and shall be appointed by the President on the recommendationsof the Minister of Transport.Persons acknowledged out millions of Nigerians by the President of theFederal Republic of Nigeria to be of proven integrity and of cognitiveexperience in relation to the activities of the NPA cannot claim ignorance orsimply play Pontius Pilate when obviously irregular contracts placed beforethem were approved by them without question. It amounts to willfulblindness and must have its consequences.By Section 10 (3) (b) and (5) (c) of the NPA Act the board of the NPA isgiven powers to control the Managing director and Executive directors of theNPA.The board was also given express powers in the said Act to obtain advicefrom non members and co-opt such special members for specific purposes.Such a board cannot claim inadequacy. After all, as the ancient wisdomsays; you cannot bear the title of eagle and be unable to prey on chickens.The culpability of the defendants in this regard is direct and not vicarious.I therefore reject the defence put forward by the defendants in this regard astotally untenable.I hold that the defendants while employed in the public service as Chairmanand directors respectively on the board of the NPA at the material times ofexhibits D2 and D3 did approve split contracts. It is an arbitrary act whichprejudiced the approving authorities superior to the NPA board constitutedby them at that time, and that they thereby abused their offices. 95
  • 96. In totality therefore I hold that the prosecution failed to prove Counts 58, 62,63, 66 and 68 beyond reasonable doubt against the defendants while I holdthat Counts 59, 60, 61, 64, 65 and 67 respectively have been proved beyondreasonable doubt by the prosecution against the defendants.I now proceed to the third issue relating to alleged disobedience of lawfulorders contained in Counts 9-57 pursuant to Section 203 of the CriminalCode.The said Section provides as follows:“203.Any person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies onhim, disobeys any lawful order issued by any person authorised by anyOrder, Act, Law, or Statute, to make the order, is guilty of a misdemeanour,unless some mode of proceeding against him for such disobedience isexpressly provided by Order, Act, Law, or Statute, and is intended to beexclusive of all other punishment.The offender is liable to imprisonment for one year.”For the prosecution to succeed here, it must prove that there was a lawfulorder issued by a person so authorized by some Order, Act, Law or Statute,that the defendants disobeyed that order and that no mode of proceedingagainst such disobedience is expressly provided by some Order, Act, Law orStatute intended to be exclusive of all other punishment.The defendants would successfully resist the charge if they establish a lawfulexcuse for the disobedience.The order in contention here is a circular, copy of which is before the Courtas exhibit P3.Can it be said that exhibit P3 is a lawful order to the NPA?On the face thereof exhibit P3 was signed directly by the then Minister ofFinance and it is titled „NEW POLICY GUIDELINES FORPROCUREMENT AND AWARD OF CONTRACTS IN GOVERNMENTMINISTRIES/PARASTALS”. 96
  • 97. It is not in dispute that the NPA is a government parastatal. What is beingcontended by the defence is that the NPA is not subject to the directives ofthe Minister of Finance and that the Federal Executive Council is not a bodyknown to law.A cursory look at exhibit P3 indicates that it is a directive of the Minister ofFinance based on the collective position of the Federal Government.Ministers of the Federal Republic draw their legality from the Constitution.Specifically Section 147 establishes the offices of Ministers of the FederalRepublic while Section 148 (1) empowers them to administer as directed bythe President.Section 148 (2) is particularly relevant in relation to the legality or otherwiseof the Federal Executive Council. It provides as follows:“(2) The President shall hold regular meetings with the Vice-President andall the Ministers of the Government of the Federation for the purposes of-(a) determining the general direction of domestic and foreign policiesof the Government of the Federation;(b) co-ordinating the activities of the President, the Vice-Presidentand the Ministers of the Government of the Federation in the dischargeof their executive responsibilities; and(c) advising the President generally in discharge of his executivefunctions other than those functions with respect to which he isrequired by this Constitution to seek the advice or act on therecommendation of any other person or body.”It is a notorious fact in respect of which the Court can justifiably takejudicial notice that the composition and functions of the Federal ExecutiveCouncil are as provided for in Section 148 (2) of the Constitution earlier setout.This Court cannot in the light thereof accept the contention of the defencethat the Federal Executive Council is an illegal body unknown to law.What is more, by the express contents of the minutes of the meetings of theNPA board presided over by the 1st defendant and participated in by theother defendants which were tendered by the defence before the Court as 97
  • 98. exhibits D2 and D3, the defendants acknowledged and deferred to theexistence and supervisory superiority of the Federal Executive Council onseveral occasions.In particular this would be seen in Agenda items 9, 28, 52 and 55 in exhibitD2 and items 8, 10, 14A, 14B, 14C, 15B, 15K and 15L of exhibit D3.While majority of these instances relate to contract approvals, item 8 inexhibit D3 relate to Policy on Ports Development while item 10 of exhibitD3 relate to Expansion of West African Container Terminal (WATC),Federal Ocean Terminal (FOT) Onne.The above references cannot in any way be reconciled with the position ofthe defendants before this Court that the NPA never took instructions fromthe Federal Executive Council and was only responsible to the Minister ofTransport and that the Federal Executive Council it had been deferring to isunknown to law.The further assertion by the defence that autonomy for the NPA is envisagedby the NPA Act, will of necessity require a perusal of the said Act.Pursuant to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the said NPA Act, members of the NPAboard are appointed and removed by the President without legal constraintsthereby implying that security of tenure for directors is absent.Part IV comprising Sections 13 to 23 deals with financial matters.By Section 14 of the said Act, management of the reserve funds of the NPAis at the directive of the Minister of Transport. By Sections16, 17 and 18 theNPA can only borrow money on the approval of the same Minister. BySection 19 it can only invest on the approval of the said Minister. Section 20makes it mandatory for the NPA to submit annual estimates of its incomeand expenditure to the President and it can only appoint auditors inaccordance with the guidelines supplied by the Auditor-General of theFederation. While pursuant to Section 21 it submits periodic returns of itsactivities to the same Minister of Transport.Part V contains provisions relating to land.The NPA acquires land through the offices of the President, and cannotunilaterally grant leases. Ports under it can only be declared by the Ministerof Transport, regulations for control and maintenance of Ports under it are as 98
  • 99. approved by the Minister, Pilotage districts and regulation are as directed bythe same Minister.Permeating the entire Act are various provisions ensuring supervision of theNPA by the Minister of Transport or some other functionary of the FederalGovernment and one cannot but come to the inevitable conclusion that theintention of the legislature in enacting the NPA Act is to keep the NPAstrictly within government ambit and control. No autonomy as canvassed bythe defence is evident in the NPA Act and I cannot find any merit in the saidproposition.Furthermore, Exhibit P3 was not signed by the Minister of Finance for theFederal Executive Council but in his capacity as Minister of Finance, aperfectly lawful capacity.I therefore hold that exhibit P3 is a lawful order.The next question to be answered is whether exhibit P3 was brought to theattention of the defendants from a person so authorized by the law.The contention of the prosecution was that a copy of the circular before theCourt as exhibit P3 was attached to a letter from the Minister of Transportand brought to the attention of the defendants by PW4. This was confirmedby PW4 in his testimony before the Court.By participating in the meeting where according to the prosecution thedecision to allegedly disobey the lawful order in issue was consummated,PW4 is a participis criminis and consequently an accomplice whoseevidence requires corroboration before it could be believed.See CHIEF ODOFIN BELLO VS THE STATE (1967) NMLR 1 andAMADI VS STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 644.The needed corroboration in this instance is first contained in Agenda Item69 (E) pages 181 to 182 of exhibit D2 the minutes of the 9th meeting of theboard of directors of the NPA, at which the 1st defendant presided and inwhich all the defendants participated. The document was tendered by thedefence and was relied on severally by them in the course of the trial.The said portion is quoted in full as follows: 99
  • 100. “(E) NEW FINANCIAL APPROVAL LEVELS IN THE PUBLICSECTOR”The Ministry Representative informed the Board that new financial levelshad been approved for all strata of Management in the public sector by theMinister of Finance. He also made available to members copies of the letterfrom the Honourable Minister of Transport to the Managing Director towhich the circular from the Minister of Finance was attached.The Board deliberated extensively on the new approval levels, particularlythat of the Managing Director which had been stated to be N700,000.00 andRESOLVED:That the board had noted the new financial levels approved for officials inthe public sector as contained in the brief of the Ministry‟s Representative.(2) That a letter be written to the Honorable Minister of Transport informinghim that the new approval levels particularly that of the Managing Directorwhich was stated to be N700,000.00 could grind the activities of theNigerian Ports Authority to a halt and hindered its operations as the amountwas grossly inadequate.(3) That because of the capital intensive nature of Port operations, theMinister should be requested to take a critical look at the new approvallevels as they affected all strata of authorities in the Organization.(4) That the approval levels granted to the Authority vide the HonourableMinister‟s letter, reference No. T.0160/S.103/T, dated 4th May, 1999operated by the Authority should be allowed to subsist until enhancedapprovals were approved.(5) That the 1999 approval levels were inadequate due to the economicsituation in the Country and the world in general.(6) That due to the capital intensive nature of the operations of the Authorityand being the gateway to the nation‟s economy, the Honourable Ministershould be requested to recommend for appropriate approval, the followingnew approval levels for the Authority: (i) Managing Director – N20million. 100
  • 101. (ii) Executive Management Committee - N75million. (iii) Board - 150million(7) That the board had also noted that some Government Parastatals- NNPC,Central Bank etc had been given enhanced approval levels.”Further corroboration was also provided in another document also tenderedby the defence; exhibit D3 the minutes of the 11th board of directors meetingof the NPA once again presided over by the 1st defendant and attended by allthe defendants.After the opening prayers the first resolution at that meeting was as follows:“That the minutes of the 9th Board meeting held on the 16th October 2002,which had been previously circulated and taken as read be and are herebyadopted.”Item 5B (i) at that meeting was as follows;“(i) Enhanced approval Level The Ministry‟s representative informed members that the new approvallevel had not been effected before the former Honourable Minister ofTransport completed his term. She said that the letter was awaiting the newMinister‟s signature. Members however felt that in the absence of theMinister, the Permanent Secretary ought to have signed the letter.”Additional corroboration for the testimony of PW4 on the awareness by thedefendants of exhibit P3 was provided in the extra judicial statements of the2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants tendered without objection before the Court.In his extra judicial statements tendered before the Court, the 1st defendantnever raised non-awareness or non-service but instead spoke about non-feasibility of implementation.The Managing Director of the NPA at the material time of exhibits D2 andD3 was the 2nd defendant. In his extra judicial statement exhibit P19 hestated as follows:“I have seen a circular from the Federal Ministry of Finance with ref NoF15775 dated 27th June 2001 signed by the then Hon. Minister of FinanceMallam Adamu Ciroma shown to me by the EFCC. The circular in respect 101
  • 102. of new policy guideline for procurement and award of contracts inGovernment Ministries and Parastatals. This circular outlined level ofministries and parastatals as follows Federal Executive Council aboveN50million while N20-N50million ministerial tenders board, N20millionboard of directors, N1million contracts perm. Secretaries N700,000= andbelow are to be by chief executives of parastatals. I was aware of the circularand was discussed at the board meeting. During my tenure NPA did notcomply with the circular…….”3rd defendant in his own statement could not remember if the circular wasdiscussed and also denied being aware of the content but before the Court hehad the opportunity but did not deny attending the meeting where it wasdiscussed and also did not deny being present at the subsequent meetingwhere earlier minutes were ratified. He instead adopted the testimony of the1st defendant as did the other defendants.4th defendant stated as follows: “I was shown a circular ref no F15775 dated27th June 2001 from the Minster of Finance on new policy guideline onprocurement and award of contracts in government ministries/parastatalssigned by the then Minister of Finance, Mallam Adamu Ciroma. The circularwas shown to me at the EFCC office. I have seen the circular before, as Icould remember we discussed it at the board and we agreed with therepresentative of the Minister to write to the Federal Ministry of Transport tosecure a waiver on the limits set out in the circular.”5th defendant on his own had this to say; “There was a circular on approvallimit of board to twenty million naira. The board reaction after receiving thecircular of the approval limit, is to following the instruction. To the best ofmy knowledge the directives was comply by the board. But if the boardapprove above the limit the management mislead the board member.”The 6th defendant stated thus on his part: “circular no F15775 dated 27th June2001 titled New Policy Guideline for Procurement and Award of Contractsin Govt Ministries/parastatals was shown to me today at EFCC office andhaven gone through, I could remember vividly that it was discussed but theimplementation was that of the management. The board had no right toignore such instruction but whether or not it was implemented was why theaudit committee was later set up to determine compliance.” 102
  • 103. In the face of these overwhelming admissions by the defendants, it cannot beasserted that exhibit P3 was never brought to their attention. I believe thetestimony of PW4 that he did bring the circular in question, copy of which isexhibit P3 to the attention of the defendants.Part of the contentions of the defendants was that the said circular was notbrought formally through the managing director or under the hand of theMinister of Transport and that the minutes which stated otherwise wasincorrect.I have perused the NPA Act and I could not see any portion thereof whichprovided that communications to the board of the NPA must be through theManaging Director of the NPA.Furthermore, the defendants who have taken copious advantages of theminutes, exhibit D2 and D3 and have asserted awareness of the circularexhibit P3 cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate as a party who hasasserted the existence of a fact is estopped from denying the existence of thatfact.See EZEONWU VS ONYEOCHI (1996) 6 NWLR (PT 438) 499.I do not believe the testimony of the 1st defendant as DW1 that the minutes,exhibit D2 and D3 were incorrect and I reject it accordingly.I hold that indeed the circular copy of which is before the Court as exhibitP3 was communicated to the defendants by the Minister of Transportthrough PW4 as contained in exhibit D2.Having so found can it then be asserted that the said circular got to thedefendants through an inappropriate channel?Section 124 of the NPA Act provides that “the Minister may give to theAuthority directives of a general nature or relating generally to matters ofpolicy with regard to the exercise by the Authority of its functions and itshall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the directives.”A simple construction of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear thatthe powers of the Minister of Transport to give instructions to the NPA iswide and unfettered, and the obligation of the NPA including its board tocomply non-discretionary. 103
  • 104. I cannot accept the later posture now displayed by the defendants on the saidcircular and I reject it.I therefore hold that the circular in question is a lawful order which wasmade to the defendants from a person lawfully authorized to do so.The next question to be answered is whether the defendants did obey thesaid circular.Once again, we go into the contents of exhibits D2 and D3.The 9th board meeting covered by exhibit D2 was held over three differentdates; 16th October, 2002, 18th October, 2002 and 12th November, 2002.Contracts had been awarded at the two earlier sessions before the circular inquestion was introduced on 12th November, 2002 in the course of the finalsession.Contracts were also awarded in the 11th board meeting covered by exhibitD3 held in June, 2003.Before proceeding further it would be necessary to examine the said counts9 to 57 in respect of which the alleged disobedience was said to have beencommitted and see if the allegations could be supported by the contents ofexhibits D2 and D3 offered in proof.The contract in count 9 was approved as agenda 30 in exhibit D2, Count 10as item 15H in exhibit D3, Count 11 as item 15S in exhibit D3, Count 12 asitem 15F in exhibit D3, the contracts in Counts 13 and 14 could not betraced in the two exhibits, Count 15 as agenda 31 in exhibit D2, Count 16 asagenda 36 in exhibit D2, contracts in Counts 17 and 18 could not be tracedin the two exhibits.The contract in Count 19 was approved as agenda 17 in exhibit D2, Count20 as agenda 35 in exhibit D2, Count 21 as agenda 11 in exhibit D2, Count22 as agenda 42 in exhibit D2, Count 23 as item 15G in exhibit D3, Count24 as item 15N in exhibit D3, Count 25 as item 15O in exhibit D3, Count 26as agenda 10 in exhibit D2, Count 27 as item 15P in exhibit D3, Count 28 asitem 15Q in exhibit D3, Count 29 as item 15M in exhibit D3 while thecontracts in Count 30 and 31 could not be traced in the two exhibits.The contract in count 32 was approved as agenda item 14 in exhibit D2,count 33 as agenda 15 in exhibit D2, count 34 as agenda 22 in exhibit D2, 104
  • 105. count 35 as agenda 24 in exhibit D2, count 36 as agenda item 29 in exhibitD2, count 37 as agenda 39 of exhibit D2, count 38 as agenda 41 in exhibitD2, count 39 as agenda item 42 in exhibit D2, count 40 as agenda 46 inexhibit D2, count 41 as agenda 44 in exhibit D2, count 42 approved onpages 103-104 of exhibit D2, count 43 as agenda 48 in exhibit D2, count 44as agenda 49 in exhibit D2, while the contract contained in count 45 as seenin agenda 14A of exhibit D3 was approved by the defendants to berecommended to the Federal Executive Council and was as such notapproved by them.The contract in count 46 was approved in item 15J of exhibit D3, contractsin counts 47 and 48 could not be traced in exhibits D2 and D3 while thealleged mobilization in count 49 was seen to have been so approved inrespect of the contract involved as seen in agenda 39 of exhibit D2 ditto forcount 50 as seen in agenda 53 of exhibit D2, count 51 was approved as seenin agenda 54 of exhibit D2 and for count 52 as seen in item 15J of exhibitD3.The mobilization alleged in count 53 was seen to have been approved initem 15O of exhibit D3, count 54 in item 15P of exhibit D3, count 55 as seenin item 15Q of exhibit D3, count 56 as seen in item 15R of exhibit D3 andfinally count 57 as could be seen in item 15T of exhibit D3.The value of each of the approved contracts is more than N20million whenconverted into naira using the applicable Central Bank of Nigeria exchangerates at the relevant date as contained in the attachment to exhibit P9.The prosecution adduced evidence and canvassed that if the defendantsintended to obey the said circular, they could recall the contracts alreadyapproved at the earlier sessions of the 9th board meeting and bring them intoconformity with the approved limit in the circular in issue.But the defence argued to the contrary insisting that such activity would beretroactive.Before answering this, it might be important to consider what happened inJune 2003 at the 11th board meeting wherein as earlier quoted it wasdiscussed that the Minister of Transport was yet to accede to the request forwaiver. 105
  • 106. The minutes recorded several contracts as having been awarded at prices farhigher than stipulated in the circular, copy of which is exhibit P3.The approvals made by the defendants in a number of instances alsoincluded mobilization fees substantially higher than as contained in the saidcircular.It could be contended that the items involved in the earlier approvals inexhibit D2 were urgently required and had probably been executed beforethe said circular was brought to the attention of the defendants several daysafter the approvals.This contention would however be negated by what could be seen fromexhibit D3 on what transpired at the 11th board meeting held more than eightmonths after the approvals. Under matters arising item 3.A.4 the saidmeeting resolved as follows and I quote;“i That it had been informed that most of the contracts awarded at the 9 thBoard Meeting had not been executed”.Evident from this resolution is that most of the contracts approved at the 9thboard meeting which were the ones covered by exhibit D2 were yet to beexecuted many months after the approval. It then meant that the prosecutionwas right in asserting that the approvals could be recalled mere days afterthey were made and while the meeting which approved them was stillongoing.It is instructive that while the defendants raised complaints about theimplications of the new approval limit they did not complain about thedirectives concerning payment of mobilization fees and yet they refused tocomply with that aspect as well.These facts before the Court make it abundantly clear that the defendantshad no intention to comply with the said circular copy of which is before theCourt as exhibit P3 and they did disobey it.The next question is whether there is a mode of proceeding against suchdisobedience expressly provided by some Order, Act, Law or Statute andintended to be exclusive of all other punishment. 106
  • 107. It was submitted for the defence that punishment for disobedience isadministrative and not penal.The entire content of exhibit P3 in my view does not support such a position.Nothing therein suggests an exclusive mode of proceeding againstdisobedience thereto as to render criminal prosecution superfluous.The above findings notwithstanding, the defendants would successfullyresist the allegations if they establish a lawful excuse for their disobedience.On this, the 1st defendant gave extensive testimony of the dire implicationsfor the economy and national interest if the circular in question wasimplemented.This position was corroborated by PW4 under cross-examination.The position of the learned prosecutor and the other prosecution witnesseswas that while there may be good reasons to seek a presidential waiver inrespect of the application of the said circular, flagrant disobedience was notthe proper course of action.As appointees of the President of Nigeria, the defendants are subject to hisdirect and indirect authority.The authority behind the circular exhibit P3 extends not only to the Presidentbut ultimately to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.Paragraph 2 of the said circular begins with the following word:“After extensive consultations with Stakeholders, the following guidelinesare being issued to fully implement the new government policy:”An implication of the preamble is that exhibit P3 is not the product of somewhim but based on wide consultations extending beyond the narrow purviewof the NPA.The defendants cannot claim to be more catholic than the Pope.While infallibility is beyond any man, the overall mandate to administer thepolity including the NPA is that of the President and where governmentfunctionaries are at liberty to apply or reject government policies as they sowill, anarchy would ensue. Such is a manifestation of a failed State. 107
  • 108. I cannot as such in the entire circumstances presented consider theexplanations offered by the defendants as constituting a lawful excuse tojustify their disobedience.I therefore hold that the prosecution failed to prove Counts 13, 14, 17, 18,30, 31, 45, 47 and 48 against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.While I find that the prosecution has established counts 9, 10, 11, 12, 15,16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57 against thedefendants beyond reasonable doubt.The last issue is as regards Count 8 which is conspiracy to commit theoffence alleged in Counts 9-to 57 contrary to Section 517 of the CriminalCode.The said Section provides as follows:517. “Any person who conspires with another to commit any offence whichis not a felony, or to do any act in any part of the world, which if done inNigeria would be an offence but not a felony, and which is an offence underthe laws in force in the place where it is proposed to be done, is guilty of amisdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for two years.The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.”Legally conspiracy simply means the meeting of two or more minds to carryout an unlawful purpose or to carry out a lawful purpose in an unlawful way.In effect, the purpose of the meeting of the two minds or more minds is tocommit an offence. While the law does not require the physical meeting of the minds in apredetermined or known place, as the offence of conspiracy could becommitted by written communication, the prosecution must establish thatthe criminal minds really met somewhere to hatch a crime.See SHODIYA VS STATE (1992) 3 NWLR (PT 230) 457 at 499.For the prosecution to succeed in proving the offence of Conspiracy, it mustprove the conspiracy as described in the charge and that the defendants wereengaged in it or prove the circumstances from which the judge may presume 108
  • 109. or infer it. It may not always be proved by direct evidence as it is generally amatter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts and conducts of theparties accused, done or carried out in pursuance of an apparent criminalpurpose in common between them.See IKEMSON VS STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 110) 455 andSHODIYA VS STATE (supra) at 472.Having held that the disobedience of the circular, copy of which is beforethe Court as exhibit P3 is unlawful it follows that the agreement to engage inthe said unlawful act as could be seen in the minutes of meetings exhibits D2and D3 at which the 1st defendant presided while the other defendantsparticipated would satisfy the legal ingredients thereof.I accordingly hold that the prosecution has made out this Count as wellbeyond reasonable doubt.The point left is the submission of the defence as to formal defects andirregularities in the dates on a number of the Counts.It will be noted that in each Count the phrase „on or about‟ was used asregards the date the alleged offence was committed. By so doing theprosecution already opted out of commitment to precision on dates.When the phrase on or about is used in a charge it is not necessary to provethe precise date the alleged offence was committed.See AWOPEJO VS STATE (2000) 6 NWLR (PT 659) 1.On the alleged formal defects in the Counts generally, it is noted that theparticulars of each of the Counts were of sufficient clarity to put thedefendants on notice as to the allegations against them.Each of the defendants expressly stated that he understood each Count whenplea was being taken and this was repeated in the witness box by the 1stdefendant who testified on behalf of all the defendants.The defendants were never misled and conducted their defence in the fullunderstanding of the allegations against them.I accordingly agree with the prosecution that it is too late in the day tocomplain about formal defects in the charge. 109
  • 110. See NDUKWE VS LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (PT 1026) 1,FRN VS ADEWUNMI (2007) 10 NWLR (PT 1042) 399 at 423-424 andSHEKETE VS NAF (2007) 14 NWLR (PT 1053) 159.In totality therefore, I find each of the defendants not guilty on Counts 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 30, 31, 45, 47, 48, 58, 62, 63, 66 and 68respectively and I hereby discharge and acquit each of them on each of thoseCounts.While I find each of the defendants guilty as charged on each of Counts8,9,10,11,12,15,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42, 43,44,46,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,59,60,61,64,65 and 67respectively and I hereby convict each one of them on each of the saidCounts respectively.Hon. Justice J.O.K. OyewoleAppearances:Mr. Festus Keyamo with him Mr. A.T. Omaghomi, Mr. E. C. Ekpebe, MissC.O. Metuonu and Miss G. Okhajagu for prosecution.Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja (SAN) with him Mr. Bambo Adesanya (SAN), ChiefBolaji Ayorinde (SAN), Otunba K.K. Kalejaye (SAN), Otunba A.A.Adegbesan, Mr. T. Olayinka, Miss O. Diya, Miss O. Ayanlaja, Miss J.Adebiyi, Mr O. Rhodes- Vivor, Miss B.B. Alo and Mr. A.O. Ashas for the1st defendant.Mr. Dele Adesina (SAN) with him Mr. Bisi Ade-Ademuwagun, Mr. F.Afolayan, Mrs K. Bello, Mr. O. Olaiya and Mr. K. Otufale for the 2 nddefendant.Mr. Gbenga Ojo with him Mr. Segun Olaniyi, Mrs M.F. Tinubu, Mrs O.Kappo and Mr. M. Abdulkareem for the 3rd defendant.Mr. Rotimi Sanni for the 4th defendant.Chief J.K. Gadzama (SAN) with him Mr. U. Chikelue, Mr. O Ukoh, Mr. D.Famakin-Johnson and Mr. A. Akande for the 5th defendant.Mr. Yinka Farounbi with him Miss B. Adegbokiki and Miss C. Aigbe for the6th defendant. 110