By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
The arraignment of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ABD Energy Solutions, Mr Kenneth Ndubuisi Amadi (1st defendant) before Justice Mohammed Liman of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos Nigeria over alleged N2.9 billion fraud, could not hold on Wednesday January 29, 2020 because the defendant (Amadi) and his counsel were not in court.
This is about the 5th aborted arraignment of the defendant since last year. Not pleased with the development, the court awarded cost of N50,000 to the prosecution against the defence counsel.
Furthermore, the court held that the defendant shall be compelled by court to issue bench warrant for his arrest if he fails to appear before the court on the next adjourned date.
When the matter was called up , Mrs Aderonke Imana announced her appearance for the prosecution while no counsel announced appearance for the defence.Consequently, Mrs Imana made two applications to the court. In the applications, she prayed the court to compel the appearance of 1st defendant in court in line with Section 114 of ACJA and also asked the court to award cost of N150,000 to her, saying “this is the 4th time I have come from Abuja and stays in a hotel.”She averred that she was in court on January 8 but the arraignment could not hold and the matter was adjourned to January 29 and behold, “both the defendant and his counsel are not in court today”
The prosecutor however submitted that she received a letter intimating her that 1st defendant would not be in court but surprisingly, the defence counsel was not also in court.
“We have been coming since last year. It is for arraignment. I therefore ask for cost in line with Section 396 of the ACJA.
“I came from Abuja and stays in a hotel each time I come for this matter”
In his ruling after the submission by prosecution counsel, Justice Liman granted the prayers as follows; “cost of N50,000 granted to the prosecutor against the defence; the defendant shall be compelled by the court to issue bench warrant for arrest if he fails to attend the court on the next adjourned date”
The matter was adjourned until March 4, 2020 for arraignment.
Amadi is alleged to have obtained the sum of N2.9billion belonging to his former employer, Eunisell Limited, by false pretences with intent to defraud, from A-Z Petroleum and AMMASCO International Ltd.
According to the charge against the defendants, the alleged offences include receiving and obtaining by false pretence, with intent to defraud, the sum of Two Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira (2,900,000,000) belonging to Eunisell Ltd, from A-Z Petroleum Ltd and AMMASCO International Ltd; omitting to make full and true entry thereof in the books and accounts; suppression of data in respect of the financial transfer to Eunisell Ltd; and converting same amount without authority inorder to create sufficient deposits to promote the credibility of his own company (IDID Nigeria Limited).
The alleged offences are contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, Cap A6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.
It would be recalled that an Abuja High Court had some time last year dismissed a libel suit for defamation filed by Kenneth Amadi and two others against their former employer Eunisell Limited.
The suit was thrown out in its entirety with costs awarded in favour of the defendants.
The 1st claimant, Amadi, had approached the court for alleged defamation against him and sought special damages from the defendants (Eunisell Limited)Kenneth Amadi was said to have allegedly obtained the sum of N2.9 billion belonging to Eunisell Limited under false pretences with intent to defraud the company. Eunisell petitioned the police seeking their intervention and investigation on Amadi’s suspected criminal misconduct, whilst he was in their employ.
He felt embarrassed and humiliated, complaining that the action of his former employer affected his credibility and consequently sought a redress.
But after hearing the matter, the presiding judge Justice Jude Okeke in his judgement, held: “Upon a calm consideration of the contents of the circumstances of the defendants’ claims against the conducts of Amadi, the 1st claimant, the respectful view that the defendants, as the then employers of the 1st Claimant when the alleged diversion of funds occurred, are persons who have interest in writing the petition to enable the police to investigate the allegation against the claimants.
“The police on its part, being a body charged under Section 4 of the Police Act to investigate and detect commission of crimes, has a duty or interest in receiving the complaint in the exercise of its duties.“It is the public duty of anyone who knows or reasonably believes that a crime has been committed, to assist in the discovery of the wrong doer.”
The judge noted that the offensive words which constitute the “defamation” in either the petition or other publications, were not set out in the pleadings as mandatorily required by law.According to the judgement: “The libel and or the publications having not been made out the other reliefs predicated on the defamation by way of general and special damages as claimed have no basis to stand. It is for this reason that all the other reliefs or facet of the claimants’ case cannot be sustained. They are dismissed.”
