The Federal Government has filed an appeal against the July 24 judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos, which partially acquitted Olufemi Thomas, former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), in a $2.1 million money laundering case.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is challenging the court’s decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by relying on “imaginary and fanciful doubt” when acquitting Thomas on five counts.
Thomas was arraigned before the Federal High Court on a seven-count charge bordering on money laundering, conspiracy, and unlawful enrichment.
The EFCC alleged that Thomas laundered $2,198,900, which he claimed came from his farming businesses and other legitimate sources.
The agency however, argued that Thomas’s explanations were inconsistent and contradictory.
Justice Olayinka Faji delivered the judgment, discharging and acquitting Thomas on five counts, including allegations of unlawful enrichment and conspiracy.
The court ruled that the EFCC failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Thomas’s assets were disproportionate to his known income.
However, Thomas was convicted on one count of violating Nigeria’s cash transaction limit law and fined N10 million.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the EFCC’s counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ekele Iheanacho, submitted that the trial judge erred in law and relied on “imaginary and fanciful doubt” when it decided that the commission did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations against the respondent in counts, 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the amended charge.
The EFCC is appealing the acquittal, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence and exercise discretion in refusing to forfeit the seized funds to the Federal Government.
The agency claimed that Thomas’s explanations for the source of the funds were unreasonable and unsatisfactory.
The EFCC is seeking a reversal of the partial acquittal and an order for the permanent forfeiture of the $2.1 million.
The EFCC argued that Thomas failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of the funds, shifting the burden of proof to him to demonstrate the legitimacy of his assets.
The agency pointed out inconsistencies in Thomas’s explanations, claiming that his farming business and other sources of income were not adequately substantiated.
The EFCC is seeking the forfeiture of the seized funds, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to order the forfeiture.
