Nigerian Court Orders Re-arraignment Of former Aviation minister For Money Laundering

Full post after cut .........

In a Lagos Federal High Court on today, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, ordered the re-arraignment of former Aviation Minister, Femi Fani-Kayode, facing charges of money laundering while ruling on an application of objection filed by Fani-Kayode’s Counsel, Mr Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), challenging the competence of the charges. The prosecutor, Mr Festus Keyamo, on Jan. 27, filed an amended 40-count charge bothering on money laundering against Fani-Kayode. The former minister  was first arraigned on Feb. 11, 2013 on a 47-count charge of money laundering and he was granted bail as pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The former minister was alleged to have transacted funds exceeding N500, 000 without going through due financial process and also alleged to have accepted cash payments to the tune of about N100 million while he was the Minister of Aviation and that of Culture and Tourism. According to the prosecutor, the offence contravened the provisions of sections 15(1) (a) (b) (c) (d) and 15 (2) (a) (b) of the Money Laundering (prohibition) Act, 2004.

Mr Fani-Kayode’s Counsel, Adedipe (SAN) objected and argued that the amended charge was invalid as it did not disclose the identity of the source from whom the accused allegedly obtained the money. He further submitted that his client was therefore not in a position to take his plea in the matter and described the charge as “ incompetent”. Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia ordered the accused to take his plea upon ruling on the application as she believed it was an abject misconception on the part of the defense counsel to have raised the objection in the first place. Here is her ruling in her own words:

“The charge against the accused is valid and hereby sustained.

 “The objection raised by the defense counsel lacks merit and should not have been raised in the first place.

“The accused is hereby directed to plead to the charge.”

The judge also agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that the non disclosure of the identity of the giver or receiver of the money was immaterial and could not affect the validity of the charge.