The Federal Capital Territory Excessive Court docket in Abuja, on Thursday, granted the request of the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee to amend the costs filed towards a former energy minister, Dr Olu Agunloye.
Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie allowed the modification whereas ruling on the defendant’s objection filed by the prosecution on June 25, 2024.
Justice Onwuegbuzie, after reviewing the affidavit in help of the movement for modification, held that the courtroom was satisfied to allow the modification.
Following the permission, the courtroom adjourned the case to February 3, 2025, for Agunloye’s re-arraignment on the amended expenses.
Agunloye is dealing with a seven-count cost filed by the EFCC in a swimsuit marked FCT/HC/CR/617/2023.
The fees relate to forgery, disobedience of a presidential order, and corruption regarding the Mambilla energy plant mission in Taraba State.
The EFCC alleged that on Could 22, 2003, Agunloye awarded a contract titled “Development of three,960MW Mambilla Hydroelectric Energy Station on Construct, Function and Switch Foundation” to Dawn Energy and Transmission Firm Restricted with out budgetary provision, approval, or money backing.
The anti-graft company additional alleged that it traced suspicious funds made by Dawn Energy and Transmission Firm Restricted to accounts linked to Agunloye, who served underneath former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Agunloye, nevertheless, pleaded not responsible to the costs.
His counsel, Adeola Adedipe (SAN), on November 13, 2024, argued towards the prosecution’s utility to amend the costs.
Adedipe (SAN) contended that the modification sought by the EFCC was an overreach.
He argued that introducing the identify of Leno Adesanya into the amended cost contradicted a declarative judgment by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal Excessive Court docket in Abuja.
In response to Adedipe, Adesanya had acquired an enforceable declarative proper underneath Part 287(3) of the 1999 Structure (as amended).
He urged the courtroom to reject the prosecution’s utility, stating that no cogent or verifiable causes had been supplied for the modification.
EFCC counsel, Abba Muhammed (SAN), nevertheless, argued that the applying to amend the costs was introduced pursuant to Sections 216(1) and (2) and 217 of the Administration of Felony Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
Muhammed urged the courtroom to grant the EFCC’s prayers, which included the go away to amend the costs towards the defendant and permission to serve the amended expenses on the defendant.
In his ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that the courtroom has the discretion to allow the alteration or modification of expenses at any stage earlier than judgment is delivered.
He acknowledged that underneath Sections 216 and 217 of the ACJA, 2015, the prosecution might amend expenses with out looking for permission, supplied the amendments complied with the legislation.
Opposite to the defendant’s claims, the choose dominated that the modification was not supposed to overreach or prejudice the defendant.
“The stage at which the prosecution is amending the costs nonetheless supplies the defendant with a chance to current his defence.
“The matter remains to be on the stage of examination-in-chief of the prosecution, and the defence stage has not been reached.
“It’s my humble view that the modification will not be supposed to overreach the defendant or trigger injustice to him,” Justice Onwuegbuzie mentioned.
