On June 21, 2024, Justice Dimgba upheld Agbele’s no-case submission, ruling that there was no case for him to answer.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has lodged a notice of appeal against Justice Nnamdi Dimgba’s Federal High Court decision that cleared Abiodun Agbele, an associate of former Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose, and three co-defendants of charges involving ₦1.2bn money laundering, filed by the commission.
Agbele and three companies associated with him and Fayose, namely Sylvan Mcnamara Limited, De Privateer Limited, and Spotless Investment Limited, were identified as the primary respondents in the appeal. The sum of ₦1.2 billion is alleged to be part of ₦4.7 billion belonging to the Federal Government, purportedly transferred from an account linked to the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
On June 21, 2024, Justice Dimgba upheld Agbele’s no-case submission, ruling that he was not required to provide a defense.
In its appeal, the EFCC, represented by Senior Advocate Wahab Shittu, outlined 17 grounds for appeal and requested two actions from the Court of Appeal:
Overturning Justice Nnamdi Dimgba’s ruling and asserting that the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents should stand trial on counts 1 through 24 of the amended charge.
Directing the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents to defend themselves against the specified counts before the trial court.
The EFCC expressed dissatisfaction with the entire decision of the lower court, especially paragraph 2 of the June 21 ruling, and contested the acquittal of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents on multiple charges filed on March 5, 2024, before Justice Dimgba of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The commission asserted that substantial evidence indicates that ₦1.219 billion intended for security purposes, transferred from the NSA’s account at the CBN to the 2nd respondent’s account, was illegally diverted by the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents to finance Fayose’s gubernatorial campaign. It argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the case against them despite overwhelming oral and documentary evidence showing unlawful retention, transfer, and possession of funds outlined in counts 1 to 24 of the charges.
