An Abuja High Court dismisses a 17-count charge of criminal breach of trust against Dimeji Bankole and Usman Bayero Nafada, former speaker and deputy speaker, respectively, of the House of Representatives

Dimeji Bankole, former speaker, House of Representatives, has been absolved of allegations of corruption and misappropriation of funds levelled against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC. An Abuja High Court sitting in Apo, Abuja, on January 31,  dismissed the 17-count charge of criminal breach of trust in the procurement of a N40 billion loan for the House of Representatives preferred against Bankole and Usman Bayero Nafada, his deputy,  by  the EFCC.

Justice Suleiman Belgore, affirmed that the EFCC was chasing shadows in the prosecution, arguing that the Clerk of the House and other administrators, being the accounting officers, should have been the ones to be prosecuted by the EFCC instead of Bankole and Nafada.

The court affirmed that it was morally wrong, indefensible and insensitive for the members to have increased their “running costs” from N27million per quarter, per member, to N42million. Justice Belgore, however, ruled that the action did not amount to a criminal offence but a moral mistake on the part of the duo. In the judgement that lasted over three hours, Justice Belgore maintained that the anti-graft agency failed to prove its allegation that the duo breached public trust in their leadership of the House of Representatives between 2007 and 2011.

EFCC had alleged that the former Speaker and his deputy, being entrusted with House of Representatives’ Account No.00390070000018 with the United Bank of Africa, UBA PLC, and the Overhead Account of the House of Representatives with First Bank of Nigeria PLC, property of the Federal Government of Nigeria, dishonestly used the said accounts to obtain loans of about N40 billion.

The anti-graft agency further alleged that after the said loan was secured, Bankole and Nafada acted in breach of public trust by using the sourced money to enhance allowances and running costs of the House members. The EFCC said the action of the duo was in violation of the approved remuneration package for political, public and judicial office holders as prescribed by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, RMAFAC, and the extant Revised Financial Regulations of the Federal Government of Nigeria, 2009. The prosecution said the ex-lawmakers committed an offence contrary to section 97(1) of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Abuja) 1990, punishable under section 315 of the same Penal Code Act.

 Olawale Akonni, and Tayo Oyetibo, SANs and counsels to the accused persons in their “no-case-submission” had argued that “there is no scintilla of evidence contained or shown in the proof of evidence placed before this honourable court, capable of warranting the inference or of leading to the conclusion that the accused/applicants breached the provisions of Section 311 of the Penal Code Act Cap. 532, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Abuja) 1990, in the manner alleged in Counts 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Charge or at all”. 

The counsels who had argued that their clients could not be tried for the acts, decisions and resolutions of the House of Representatives, taken at its executive or committee sessions because the principle of explicit liability was unknown to criminal law in Nigeria, maintained that ‘the offences of criminal breach of trust and theft as alleged in Counts 2-17 of the Charge (as contemplated or defined in the Penal Code) cannot be committed by the applicant by ‘obtaining a loan to augment allowances and running costs of members of the House of Representatives in violation of the extant Revised Financial Regulations of the Federal Government of Nigeria, 2009 or at all’.

 “The offences of criminal breach of trust and theft as alleged in Counts 2-17 of the Charge (as contemplated of defined in the Penal Code) cannot be committed by the applicant by ‘indiscriminately increasing the allowances of members of the House of Representatives in violation of the approved Remuneration Package for Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders by the Revenue Mobilisation, Financial Regulations of the Federal Government of Nigeria, 2009, in that the Revised Regulations stipulate a punishment for the breach of its provisions.

Justice Belgore therefore dismissed the matter for want of incriminating evidence and consequently discharged the accused persons.  Justice Belgore maintained that having gone through the totality of proof of evidence before the court as well as the oral testimonies of all the witnesses that were called by the EFCC, he was convinced that the two accused persons did not commit any offence known to the Nigerian law.

He said what the accused persons did while in office was not salary or allowance increase but enhancement of the running cost of members in tune with the approved budgetary allocation for the lower chamber, adding that there was  no case of conspiracy or theft linking the accused as alleged by the EFCC. “Under all the relevant statutes and the constitution, obtaining loan by any department is not a crime and there is no penal provision for it. It is, therefore, my considered view that the proof of evidence did not connect the accused persons with committal of any offence or such acts that should warrant their continued trial before this court”, he said.

Justice Belgore, however, observed that “though it is morally wrong, morally indefensible and morally insensitive for the members of the House of Representatives led by Bankole and Nafada to have increased their “running costs” from N27million per quarter, per member, to N42million, it did not amount to a criminal offence but a moral wrong”.

The court reasoned that the RMAFC could not fix the running costs for members of the House of Representatives because the legislature is a different arm of government.  He said the members were at liberty to increase their “running costs to whatever amount they so collectively wish, arguing that RMAFC can only fix wages and allowances and not running costs which do not qualify as allowances”.

 Among those that testified as prosecution witnesses in the matter included Abubakar Salisu Maikasuwa and Mohammed Ataba Sani-Omolori, the clerks of the National Assembly and House of Representatives, respectively, Bukoye Lasisi, director of finance of the National Assembly,  bank officials, and top officials of the RMAFC.

Mixed reactions have trailed the January 31, verdict of Justice Belgore.  Alani Bankole, father of the erstwhile speaker and a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, welcomed the judgement, saying that it was a vindication for Dimeji who, he said, was persecuted for no just reason. “I always had the belief that Dimeji is not guilty but was being persecuted for what he believed in. With the judgement, the court has vindicated the stand of my son and the majority of Nigerians,” he said.

Kayode Odunaro, former media aide to the erstwhile speaker, said the judiciary had demonstrated that it remains the last hope of ordinary people, saying that the Nigeria judicial system has improved considerably.

But Festus Keyamo, counsel to the EFCC, insisted that the judgement was a miscarriage of justice. He said the duo were not charged to court for, “over-spending, but for the misappropriation of funds”. Keyamo said their complicity was established by the sole fact that there was a resolution to commit an illegal act, in a meeting presided by the accused persons, maintaining that the proof of evidence before the court was enough to secure their conviction. “We do not know how the judge arrived at the conclusion that the loans have been fully paid back when the loan obtained from First Bank PLC remains unpaid as manifestly shown in the evidence of PW 9 above (as against that of UBA). This charge is only in relation to the allegations of obtaining illegal loans and the indiscriminate increase of the “allowances” and “running costs” from N27million to N42million per member, per quarter, under the leadership of the accused persons,” he said.

In the last nine months, Bankole has been battling to wriggle out of criminal charges levelled against him and his deputy by the EFCC. He was alleged to have misappropriated N9 billion out N11 billion capital votes of the House in the 2008/2009 budget. He was also accused of corrupt practices in the purchase of 380 Peugeot 407 cars worth N2.4 billion in 2008, buying of special vehicles worth N335.5 million for the leadership of the lower chamber of the National assembly and purchase of office equipment at over-inflated prices.

Bankole was also said to have taken a N10 billion bank loan to finance the activities of the House without the knowledge of his colleagues. The loan was reportedly taken in three installments of N6.1 billion, N2.5 billion and N1.5 billion in May 2010. Due to the alleged debt, the banks refused to pay the 2011 second quarter salaries, allowances and emoluments of the legislators. This infuriated members of the House of Representatives, who styled themselves The Progressives; led by Dino Melaye. The group later submitted a 69-page document to the EFCC, which provided proof of corruption and fraudulent deals allegedly perpetrated by the House leadership.

Bankole was arrested by the EFCC in May 2011, two weeks before he would have officially handed over to a new speaker. On Wednesday, June 8, he was dragged before the Federal High Court, Abuja, on a 16-count charge of corruption on the charge no. FHC/ABJ/CR/47/2011: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Dimeji Bankole.