The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed an appeal against the High Court judgment that discharged and acquitted Shamsudeen — the son of Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed — on N1.1 billion fraud charges. The anti‑graft agency is challenging the decision of Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, which had dismissed and acquitted the respondent on nine counts.
Shamsudeen was first arraigned on 1 February 2017 before Justice Dimgba on 20 counts related to money laundering. The EFCC alleged that he made large cash payments for properties in various parts of Abuja without using a financial institution. On 14 December 2021, Justice Dimgba delivered a ruling on a no‑case submission, dismissing 11 of the 20 charges. The remaining allegations required Shamsudeen to explain his failure to declare certain bank accounts and their balances to the EFCC, as well as accusations of identity fraud and forgery.
On 7 February 2023, in suit FHC/BAJ/CR/252/2016, Justice Dimgba held that the EFCC had failed to prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Regarding the claim that the defendant forged signatures and documents to obtain illegal funds, the judge noted that the agency’s forensic expert did not provide sufficient evidence. “An allegation that a document is forged is a criminal allegation that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not by speculation,” he said, emphasizing that the burden of proof rested on the prosecution, which had not met it. The judge also ordered the prosecution to refund Shamsudeen N580,000 and $60,000, and to return other items taken from his apartment during the execution of a search warrant.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the EFCC filed a notice of appeal before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, seeking to set aside the decision. The appeal is based on 13 grounds and requests a single relief: an order allowing the appeal, overturning Justice Dimgba’s 7 February judgment, and entering a conviction and sentence against the respondent.
One ground of appeal alleges that the trial court erred in law by holding that the case on Count 11 of the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The EFCC argues that unobjected‑to evidence was presented against the respondent, rendering the contents “unassailable,” and that the “appeal of shock” raised by the respondent was not available to him. Another ground contends that the trial court ignored legally admissible evidential material that proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, as reflected on page 12 of the judgment in support of counts 11‑15.
Comments are closed for this story.