Money Laundering: Court to rule on objection to Justice Ajumogobia’s trial June 28

A Federal High Court Lagos on Monday, fixed June 28, to convey administering on a starter protest testing the preliminary of Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia confronting Money Laundering charges.

The court fixed the date for decision after insight for the resistance and arraignment had both embraced their different contentions under the watchful eye of the court.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Ofili-Ajumogobia and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Godwin Obla, with 18 tallies verging on Conspiracy, Unlawful Enrichment, maintenance of Crime Proceeds and Money Laundering.

The litigants are standing preliminary before Justice Rilwan Aikawa.

They argued not liable to all checks of the charge and were allowed safeguards in the total of N10 million each with two sureties in like entirety.

The litigants were first charged before an Ikeja division of the High Court which had struck out the charge on grounds of ward.

Resulting after striking out of the charge, EFCC favored same charges against the litigants under the steady gaze of the Federal High Court.

At the keep going asjourned date on May 18, first safeguard counsel, Chief Robert Clarke (SAN), educated the court regarding a starter protest testing the purview of the court.

In a similar vein, second barrier counsel, Chief Ferdinard Orbih (SAN), had additionally attracted the court"s consideration regarding pending movements under the watchful eye of the court trying to isolate the charges for second litigant.

At the point when the case was approached Monday, Clarke embraced his contentions on the starter protest, contending that Ajumogobia was as yet a serving Judge of the Federal High Court and had not been rejected.

He contended that the indictment had not offered anything to demonstrate that there was a journal in which the rejection of the judge was imparted.

As per Clarke, what is under the steady gaze of the court is display EFCC 2, which is a record demonstrating that impact has been given to the proposal for expulsion and not a journal.

He noticed that the said show was routed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and not to the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, including that it was likewise stamped confined.

Refering to the instance of Governor of Ekiti State versus Ojo, just as the arrangement of area 103 of the Evidemce Act, he presented that the record was a private one and not a newspaper.

He asked the court to so hold.

On his part, the investigator, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, additionally received his procedures under the watchful eye of the court, asking it to disapprove the contentions of resistance.

Along these lines, second protection counsel, Chief Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN) likewise received his contentions in the interest of the second respondent, looking to subdue the charge.

He likewise searched a request striking out checks one, two and three, for being a maltreatment of court process or in the option, a request, isolating the charge against the litigants, with the goal that the second respondent could be attempted seperately.

In the wake of tuning in to separate contentions, Justice Aikawa dismissed the case until June 28 for decision.

EFCC asserted that the respondents plotted on May 21, 2014 to in a roundabout way hide various totals of cash, in the Diamond Bank record of Nigel and Colive Ltd, an organization affirmed to be worked by Ajumogobia.

They were affirmed to have planned to hold in same record, the entirety of N500 million, which the two of them sensibly should have known framed piece of continues of unlawful demonstrations of unlawful enhancement.

For example, Ajumogobia was asserted to have on various dates in 2014, held totals of monies like: N5million, 150,000 dollars, 20,000 dollars, 30,000 dollars, 50,000 dollars, and 55,000 dollars in the Diamond ledger of Nigel and Colive.

The EFCC additionally blamed Ajumogobia for by implication disguising the total of N12million in a similar record, and owning false expression to the EFCC that the cash was installment available to be purchased of a landed property.

The supposed offenses contradicted the arrangements of Sections 15 (2) (an) and 18 (an) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011.(NAN)

Tread Started by: Christian Uriel On 5:31pm Jun 24