Court acquits Aliyu Abubakar, Malabu Oil in $1bn fraud case

Discharge and acquittal is a court’s formal decision that defendants should no longer face the charges in that case. “Discharged” means the defendants are released from the proceedings. “Acquitted” means the court found that the prosecution did not establish guilt to the required legal standard. Together, the words show that the case ended in the defendants’ favour.

In this case, Justice Inyang Ekwo discharged and acquitted Aliyu Abubakar, Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, and six other defendants. The ruling followed a 43-count money-laundering case linked to OPL 245. The judge held that the EFCC had not proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. He also criticised the unfinished investigation and the decision to prosecute despite advice from the Attorney-General’s office.

The immediate result is that all eight defendants were cleared in that case. Abubakar was separately discharged on five counts involving an alleged N300m. The judgment closes those proceedings against the defendants unless a lawful appeal changes the outcome.

The prosecution’s case mainly concerned alleged fraudulent dealings and money laundering connected to Oil Prospecting Licence 245. The EFCC filed a 43-count charge against Aliyu Abubakar, Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, and six other defendants in December 2016. The allegations focused on money that the commission said came from unlawful activities.

The EFCC alleged that Malabu, alongside Seidougha Munamuna, Amaran Joseph, and Dauzia Loya Etete, took control of two Federal Government transfers. One was $401.54m, and the other was $400m. The funds were allegedly held in Malabu accounts at First Bank of Nigeria and Keystone Bank. The defendants pleaded not guilty.

Justice Inyang Ekwo ultimately rejected the prosecution’s case. He said the EFCC had not proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. He also found that the investigation was incomplete before the charge was filed and criticised the prosecution for ignoring advice from the Attorney-General’s office against prosecution.

The EFCC alleged that the case involved about $1bn and N673m in money-laundering offences connected to OPL 245. These figures described the overall sums the commission said were involved in the alleged unlawful dealings. The court later acquitted the defendants because the allegations were not proved to the required standard.

The charges identified two major transfers in particular. The EFCC alleged that Malabu Oil and Gas Limited took control of $401.54m transferred by the Federal Government into its First Bank of Nigeria account. It also alleged that the company took control of another $400m transferred into its Keystone Bank account. The commission called the funds proceeds of unlawful activities.

Those figures remained allegations, not findings of guilt. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and Justice Inyang Ekwo ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. He also found that the investigation was incomplete when the defendants were charged, weakening the prosecution’s case.

Oil Prospecting Licence 245, or OPL 245, is the licence identified in the article as the central link to the disputed dealings. The article calls it controversial but does not explain the licence’s ownership, location, or commercial terms. Its importance here is that the alleged financial transactions were connected to dealings involving the licence.

The EFCC alleged that about $1bn and N673m were involved in money-laundering offences linked to OPL 245. It specifically cited Federal Government transfers of $401.54m and $400m into Malabu Oil and Gas Limited accounts. The commission described those funds as proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011, as amended.

A licence deal can therefore become a criminal case when prosecutors claim that money connected to the deal came from unlawful activity or was handled to conceal its origin. In this case, however, Justice Ekwo ruled that the EFCC did not prove its allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The article does not provide further commercial details about OPL 245.

“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the prosecution’s burden in a criminal case. It requires evidence strong enough for the court to be sure that the defendant committed the alleged offences. Suspicion, assumption, or an incomplete evidential trail is not enough. If serious doubt remains, the court must not convict.

Justice Inyang Ekwo said the EFCC failed to meet that burden against all eight defendants. He criticised the investigation behind the charge, saying the Investigating Police Officer had to demonstrate an actual investigation rather than assume facts by guessing them. He also held that the investigation had not been concluded before prosecution began.

The judge separately found that five money-laundering counts against Aliyu Abubakar, involving an alleged N300m, could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore discharged Abubakar in that case too. The rulings show that allegations and large financial figures do not replace properly completed investigations and convincing evidence.

The Attorney-General of the Federation, or AGF, is described in the judgment as the nation’s chief law officer. The article does not set out every power of that office. It does show that Justice Ekwo treated the AGF’s advice as authoritative in deciding whether a prosecution should proceed.

In 2018, the AGF’s office, then headed by Abubakar Malami, advised against prosecuting the defendants because of insufficient evidence. Justice Ekwo said the EFCC should not have filed or continued the charge against that advice. He stressed that no prosecuting agency was higher in law than the HAGF, meaning the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation.

The judge also warned against government agencies working at cross purposes. His objection was therefore both procedural and institutional: the EFCC proceeded despite the chief law officer’s position, while the investigation was still incomplete. He said courts would not endorse a prosecuting agency defying the AGF’s advice and having its way in court.

After an acquittal, the defendants are cleared of the charges in that case, and the prosecution has not secured a conviction. Here, Justice Inyang Ekwo ordered the discharge and acquittal of all eight defendants. He also separately discharged Aliyu Abubakar on five counts involving an alleged N300m. The judgment ended those proceedings at the trial court.

Completing an investigation before filing charges helps prosecutors test the evidence, identify what can be proved, and present a coherent case. Justice Ekwo said the Investigating Police Officer must show that an investigation was actually conducted, rather than assume facts by guessing them. He found a clear situation in which the investigation had not been completed before the charge was filed.

The ruling also criticised the EFCC for proceeding despite the AGF’s advice against prosecution. The article does not state whether the EFCC will appeal or whether any fresh proceedings will follow. Its immediate case, however, ended with the defendants’ discharge and acquittal.