A Federal High Court in Abuja has cleared Isabella Mimie Oshodin and Bob Oshodin Organisation Ltd of money laundering allegations brought against them by the federal government.
Justice James Omotosho discharged the defendants after ruling that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Oshodin and the company had faced a 25-count charge involving conspiracy, alleged money laundering, and possession of N22.9 billion said to be proceeds of unlawful activity.
The prosecution claimed the funds, allegedly linked to the office of former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki, were laundered through multiple transactions, including transfers to foreign bank accounts and property purchases in the United States.
In his ruling, Omotosho said the prosecution could not prove that the money originated from unlawful activity or that the defendants were aware of any illegality.
The court also rejected statements attributed to Oshodin, declaring them inadmissible because they were not obtained in line with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
Justice Omotosho further noted that prosecutors failed to provide reliable evidence showing that money was transferred abroad or used to purchase the properties listed in the charges.
He added that the failure to call Sambo Dasuki, whose office was central to the allegations, significantly weakened the case.
Dasuki, who served as Nigeria’s National Security Adviser from 2012 to 2015, is separately facing trial alongside Aminu Baba-Kusa, former general manager of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), and two firms over an alleged N33.2 billion fraud case.
During the proceedings, Oshodin told the court that the funds in question came from lawful business transactions, including the sale of her company’s factory and youth training programmes under the presidential amnesty scheme.
She also stated that she refunded N180 million to the government after EFCC inquiries.
Her defence team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Adegboyega Awomolo, argued that the prosecution failed to prove the funds were illicit and relied on evidence that could not stand in court.
Although the prosecution insisted that large sums linked to the former NSA passed through the defendants’ accounts, the court ruled that the evidence did not meet the legal standard required for conviction.
“The prosecution has an onerous task to prove the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. Where it fails to do so, all doubts are resolved in favour of the defendant,” the judge said.
“The evidence, whether oral or documentary, must establish the ingredients of the offence charged in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence.”