In a groundbreaking decision, the Court of Appeal in Ibadan acquitted Otunba Justus Olugbenga Daniel of all charges in a high-profile corruption case that captivated the nation. The appeal, which was filed after the defendant was asked to enter a defense for 17 remaining counts, resulted in a unanimous ruling by a three-man panel.
The court emphasized the lack of evidence, manifest contradictions, and absence of offenses created by the law. The judgment has shed light on critical issues such as jurisdiction, land administration, fraudulent conversion, false declarations, and corrupt enrichment. This verdict had significant implications for the Nigerian legal system and the fight against corruption.
The trial of Otunba Gbenga Daniel began in 2011 with a 16-count charge that was subsequently amended multiple times. The final charge comprised 32 counts, leading to a lengthy legal battle. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) presented approximately 35 witnesses and over 1000 documents as exhibits. However, the Defense Team argued that the prosecution failed to establish a case against the defendant, pointing out contradictions and the absence of evidence to prove essential elements of the alleged offenses.
The trial court partially granted the Defense Team’s No Case Submission, dismissing 15 counts and ordering the defendant to enter a defense for the remaining 17 counts. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Otunba Gbenga Daniel, now a Senator in the Red Chamber, appealed to the Court of Appeal in Ibadan. The three-man panel, led by Yargata Nimpar JCA, unanimously upheld the appeal on the No Case Submission, resulting in the dismissal of all 17 remaining counts. The Court of Appeal’s ruling addressed several crucial issues raised during the appeal. It emphasized that jurisdiction should be determined before proceeding with any criminal trial, dismissing the notion that convenience should play a role in deciding when to raise jurisdictional objections. The court also emphasized that offenses must be created by valid and existing laws, stating that the trial court erred by designating specific times to raise objections regarding jurisdiction.
Regarding land administration and the Land Use Act, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Act did not criminalize actions within the powers of the governor. It highlighted that deviations from the powers bestowed by the Act could result in breaches but not necessarily criminal offenses. The court questioned the respondent’s attempt to create offenses related to land administration in Ogun State laws. The appeal judgment further scrutinized allegations of fraudulent conversion of land, emphasizing that the Act allowed the governor to allocate land for all purposes. The court questioned the respondent’s attempt to distinguish authorized and unauthorized purposes, emphasizing that “all purposes” should indeed mean “all purposes.” It concluded that the respondent’s arguments were more moral questions than criminal issues. The Court of Appeal also addressed the issue of fraudulent declarations made in Abuja, stressing the need for evidence to establish knowledge of false declarations and fraudulent intentions. It highlighted that the respondent failed to provide evidence of fraudulent intentions or prove elements of the offense.
Additionally, the court scrutinized allegations of corrupt enrichment, dismissing semantic distinctions between corrupt enrichment and corruptly obtaining property. It criticized the prosecution for crafting charges without sufficient evidence and highlighted that the evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to warrant an explanation from the accused person. It emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the legal process and ensuring that genuine issues and controversies are settled.
The judgment was been hailed as a landmark victory for for Otunba Gbenga Daniel who was Acquitted of all Charges.
By Folake Sokoya