The former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Raymond Omatseye, standing trial before Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of Federal High Court, Lagos, on amended 27-count charge bordering on alleged contract scam will know his fate on January 26, 2015 when the court rules on his ‘no case’ submission.
Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia fixed the date for ruling in the suit after counsel representing the prosecution and defence had adopted their written submissions before the court.
Adopting his ‘no case’ submission, the defence counsel, Olusina Sofola (SAN), urged the court to discharge and acquit the accused on all counts, arguing that the charge against the accused was that he allegedly approved the award of contract in the sum of over N4 million and, therefore, contravened the provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2007.
Sofola further argued that the prosecution was duty-bound to state what the valid monetary threshold was as at the time of the award of the contract by the accused.
“Since the counts in the charge refer to monetary threshold and not only threshold, then the court must look at the definition of monetary threshold and not threshold.
“We also invite the court to look again at Section 16 (2) of the Public Procurement Act, which provides that the council shall consider, approve and amend the monetary threshold for the application of the provisions of this act, by procuring entities.
“The definition of monetary threshold states that it is the value limit in naira set by the bureau, outside of which an approving authority may not award a procurement contract.
“We urge the court to uphold our arguments, that the offence for which the accused is charged is the award of the contract, not the approval of the actual process,” he submitted.
Further, Sofola argued that Exhibit PD 16Z (Public Procurement Act) was not a subsidiary legislation as at the time the contracts were awarded.
He said: “Though the accused had admitted that his threshold was N5 million for works and N2.5 million for goods, the prosecution is duty-bound to establish what the valid threshold was at the time of the award of the contract.”
Consequently, he submitted that the prosecution was duty-bound to adduce evidence in support of the fact sought to be established, stressing that the accused cannot be called upon to answer to an inconclusive prosecution.
In his final submission, he prayed the court to sustain the application of the accused for a ‘no case’ submission, and discharge and acquit him accordingly.
In his response, the prosecutor, Godwin Obla (SAN), pointed out that the accused had made submissions and conjectures not supported by the evidence on record before the court.
He canvassed that it was too late in the day for the accused to raise an objection to the charge, since he never raised same when it was read to him.
“Assuming but not conceding that there is an error in the counts as contended, we submit that the alleged error, if any, cannot render the counts invalid, having regards to sections 166 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
“The accused, who is a very educated legal practitioner and represented by a team of formidable lawyers, never raised any objection when the charge was read to him.
“Upon being arraigned before this court, the accused pleaded not guilty to all counts; this presupposes that he understood the charge and was not mislead,” the prosecutor said.
Obla argued that in the light of the definition of the word threshold by the Act, it was preposterous for the accused to submit that the offence created under section 16 (1) relates to the award of contract.
“With profound respect to the accused, inserting the word ‘awarded’ in the charge as he proposed will amount to charging him with an offence not known to law.
“The testimonies of PW 1, 2, and 3 are all in agreement as to the stipulated threshold and even the accused admitted this; so, facts that are admitted needs no further proof.
“I think the most important question is whether the accused has been linked to the charge, and I say yes, he has been sufficiently linked to the charge,” Obla maintained.
He, therefore, submitted that it would be in the interest of the accused to enter the witness box, and tell the court what he knows about the issue.
Concluding his submission, he prayed the court to uphold his submissions and call on the accused to open his defence.
After listening to the submissions of counsels, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia adjourned the case till January 26, 2015 for ruling.
Omatseye had been re-arraigned on January 21, 2013 and he had pleaded not guilty to the charge and was granted bail.
The prosecution opened its case on February 4, 2013, by calling on its first witness, Ibrahim Ahmed, an Investigating Police Officer (IPO) with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
On May 30, 2013, Obla called his second witness, Mohammed Shehu, a former acting Director of Procurement in NIMASA. The third witness is Aminu Aliyu, a staff of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP).
All the witnesses had variously testified before the court as to the nature and form of contract awarded by the accused, while serving as DG of NIMASA.
In the charge, the accused was alleged to have been involved in contract splitting and bid rigging estimated at over N1.5 billion.
It should be noted that the offence allegedly committed contravenes the provisions of sections 58(4) (d) of the Public Procurement Act 2007 and sections 14(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004.
, Raymond Omatseye, standing trial before Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of Federal High Court, Lagos, on amended 27-count charge bordering on alleged contract scam will know his fate on January 26, 2015 when the court rules on his ‘no case’ submission.){kind=link}