Former staff of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Alu Dismas, incurred the wrath of the judge of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, who on Monday revoked his bail and sent him back to prison over late coming to the court.
Mojisola Olatoregun, the judge, said it was not the first time Mr. Dismas had come late for his trial, adding that the court does not wait for an accused.
Mr. Dismas, a former personal assistant to Patrick Akpobolokemi, the ex-Director General of NIMASA, and Callistus Obi, a former acting D-G of the agency, are facing an eight-count charge of money laundering amounting to N136 million.

The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges and were admitted to bail in the sum of N5 million each with sureties in like sums.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had closed the case for the prosecution on January 31, while the defence filed a no-case submission in response.

The court, however, dismissed the submission and ordered the defence to open its case.

When proceedings began at 9 a.m. on Monday, only Mr. Obi, the first accused person, was in court.

Mr. Dismas arrived the court at about 10.35 am, after the matter had been stood down. When the proceedings resumed, the visibly angry judge said she has had enough of the accused person’s late-comings.

“I hereby revoke his bail, he should be taken back into prison custody,” the judge held.

On hearing the judge’s decision, Mr. Dismas broke down in the dock and wept.

Following the decision of the court, the first defendant’s counsel, Wale Akoni, called his client into the witness box to open his defence.

Mr. Akoni: “Look at these documents and confirm if they are contract documents emanating from the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity.”

The witness: “Yes, two are letters from NIMASA and the third is a letter from Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity as regards a contract.”

When asked if he participated in writing any of the letters, he replied, “No, I didn’t.”

On how much was requested of NIMASA, the witness replied that N35 million was requested for preparing documents for ratification of Maritime Labour Convention 2006 but N25 million was approved.

He added that he did not retain any part of the N25 million.

When asked what money from NIMASA was paid into an account for him, he said they were refunds on a project NIMASA had not paid for yet, which he used funds from elsewhere to discharge.

In his cross-examination, counsel to the second accused, Joseph Nwaobike, asked the witness “did you conspire with the second defendant to defraud NIMASA?”

Witness: “No I didn’t “

Mr.Nwobike: “In your statement at EFCC, you said the second defendant sent you a text message; I can say the text was not a direct instruction from the second defendant?”

The witness: “The second defendant is not in a position to give me instructions, it was an instruction from the Director-General of NIMASA.“

During his cross-examination, the prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo, asked the witness: “You are the sole signatory to bank accounts opened by you on behalf of the third and fourth defendants, am I correct”? The witness answered “Yes”.

Oyedepo: “Is it correct to say that you received about N43 million into those accounts from NIMASA?”

Witness: “Yes”.

Oyedepo: “Are you aware that N111 million was credited to Kostan Mega Ltd as a result of the text message between you and the second defendant?”

Witness: “I wouldn’t know.“

Oyedepo: “What were the services rendered by Kostan Mega Ltd?”

Witness: “I wouldn’t know.“

Oyedepo: “The total sum of N25 million that was sent to the third and fourth defendants’ bank account, what was it used for?”

Witness: “For my personal use.”

Oyedepo: “Will I be correct to say you used part of it to build your hotel?”

Witness: “Yes I did.“

Oyedepo: “ You made a cash payment of N25 million to one Mrs. Braimoh, are you aware that it is wrong to make cash payment of government funds?”

Witness: “I’m not aware.“

The judge adjourned till March 7, 8. and 9 for continuation of cross-examination of the witness, adding that “progress must be made in this case; it has lingered for two years, and we must take trial day to day.”

Section: