TheCable

A federal high court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos on Friday, sentenced Raymond Omatseye, one-time director general of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), to fiveyears in prison.

Omatseye was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 27-count charge regarding a contract scam to the tune of N1.5 billion.

Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, the presiding judge, said Godwin Obla, EFCC counsel and prosecutor had made a case beyond reasonable doubt, convicting Omatseye on the basis of the provision of the public procurement act.

He was charged for money laundering, contrary to sections 14(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004.

At the last adjourned date on March 14, counsels representing the prosecution and defence had both adopted their final written addresses in court.

Edoka Onyeke, counsel to the accused, had urged the court to discountenance the arguments of prosecution and dismiss the charge against his client.

He argued that the prosecution had not been able to proof its case beyond reasonable doubt, saying that out of the 27-count-charge against the accused, 25 dealt strictly with the issue of approval of contract above the threshold while the remaining two were on bid rigging.

The judge had said the date for judgment would be communicated to parties.

Delivering judgment by fiat on Friday, Ofili-Ajumogobia found Omatseye guilty of 24 out of the 27 counts brought against him.

She however, discharged and acquitted him of three out of the 27 counts bordering on bid rigging.

Ajumogobia found Omatseye guilty of awarding contracts above the stipulated threshold and convicted him on counts 1 to 20,24,25,26, and 27.

She, however, discharged and acquitted him on counts 21, 22 and 23 of the charge.

“In the instant charge, the defendant testified in his evidence in chief that he was released on administrative bail and asked to come back the following day and in his statement, he responded that his threshold for supply was N2.5 million,” she held.

“Furthermore, his statement was corroborated by Pw2 and Pw3; Pw2 stated in his testimony that in line with the Public Procurement Act, the Chief Executive officer had a threshold of N2.5 million for goods and five million naira for works.

“From the foregoing, I find that the exhibits PD 16 A-Y are all above the threshold and approved limit of the DG; that means, they are all above N2.5 million.

“The testimony of Pw2 and 3 that the approved threshold of the defendant on goods and services was N2.5 million does not only corroborate the statement of the defendant but totally lends credence to the threshold limit applicable on the defendant as DG of NIMASA.

” I find that the threshold as contained in exhibit PD 16 Z is applicable to the defendant, setting his limit as N2.5 million for procurement of goods, and N5 million for procurement of services.

“A calm perusal of exhibit PD 16 series reveals that they are repetitive awards of contract for the supply of goods approved by the defendant in his position as DG of NIMASA.

“It is clear that all the contract sum are above the threshold as set out in exhibit PD 16 Z, thereby violating the provisions of section 161 (a) of the Public Procurement Act 2007.

“Accordingly, based on the foregoing before this court, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, in the face of the offence contained in counts 1-20,24,25,26,and 27.

“I accordingly find him guilty as charged on these counts.

“The second issue is whether the prosecution has proved the offence of bid rigging.

“It is trite law that the prosecution must prove all the essential ingredients of the offence before it can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“It is my view that the prosecution has not established the offence of bid rigging against the defendant to secure a conviction on that ground, and I so hold.

“The accused is hereby sentenced to five years imprisonment on counts 1 to 20,24,25,26 and 27 of the charge.

“He is discharged and acquitted of counts 21, 22, and 23 of the charge.

“The term of imprisonment are to run concurrently.”