A Special Offenses court sitting in Ikeja has discharged and acquitted an alleged EFCC informant, Ladeji Kelvin Babatunde accused by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, of defrauding some people under false pretence sometimes in 2021.
In a well considered judgment of Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo, delivered by Justice S. Sholebo, the court held that the prosecution “failed to prove an intent to defraud and false pretence against the defendant”, hence the defendant was let off the hook.
In a certified true copy of the judgment seen by lawyerwaka.com, the court held that the failure of the Prosecution to call vital witnesses “raises presumption under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act that had been called, the evidence he would have led would have been unfavourable to the Prosecution.”
The court came to the conclusion that : “In the light of the foregoing, it is the view of this court that the Prosecution has failed to prove an intent to defraud and false pretence against the Defendant which is a crucial ingredient in the offence of obtaining under false pretence.”
Babatunde was arraigned on December 20th, 2021 by the EFCC on a four -count charge bordering on obtaining money by false pretence contrary to section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Offences Act No. 14 of 2006.
During the trial the EFCC has called only one witness, an operative with the commission, who testified that the Defendant was arrested and charged to court based on a petition to the agency by Irekanmi Community Development Association that the Defendant was posing in the community as an operative of EFCC, by collecting money from suspected internet fraudsters in the community promises to have them arrested y EFCC.
The witness claimed that indeed the Defendant confessed to the commission of the offences by collecting various sums of money from his victims, but rendered no services to them. The Defence Counsel, Oludare Odetoki, who was not in court on the day the Judgement was delivered had prayed the court in his final written address to discharge and acquit the Defendant as the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offence.
The EFCC witness told the court that his findings and that of his team of investigators revealed that “the Defendant was actually impersonating the EFCC and was moving around in the community collecting money from suspected internet fraudsters, promising that he will not bring EFCC to arrest them.”
In his defence, the Defendant argued that although he was indeed collecting money from some of the internet fraudsters but, some of the money is loan and gift and that he was close to the internet fraudsters as an undercover for the EFCC, and that his efforts “has led the EFCC on lore than 20 successful operations where they have recovered over N500million.”
He testified that he strategized in order to make successful operations, “fraternize with yahoo boys, lodge together at hotels and present himself s one of them in order to give accurate information to the EFCC.”
At the conclusions of the trial, the court came to the conclusion that though, the Defendant’s confessional statement contain true facts but the failure by the prosecution to bring the author of the petition to adopt the statement and consent was, “fatal to the case of the Prosecution. The Prosecution ought to have investigated thoroughly the writer of the petition which they failed to do.”
The court noted no one gave evidence as to confirm what the money being given to the Defendant was meant for contrary to the claims of fraud being prosecuted by the EFCC.
The court therefore held, “In the light of the foregoing, it is the view of this Court that the Prosecution has failed to prove an intent to defraud and false pretence against the Defendant which is a crucial ingredient in the offence of obtaining under false pretence.
“The Prosecution has proved the Actus reus which is the objective element of the crime and not the mens Rea which is the guilty mind or guilty intention to commit a crime.
“In the light of the foregoing, I therefore find the Defendant not guilty and discharge and acquit him accordingly.” The court held.
