The Federal Government has filed a notice of appeal to challenge the July 24, judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos, which acquitted Dr Olufemi Thomas, former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), of money laundering allegations.
Our correspondent obtained the 28-page notice of appeal, submitted to the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, listing 11 grounds on which the government is contesting Justice Olayinka Faji’s decision.
Justice Faji had discharged and acquitted Thomas on five of six counts brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), stating that the agency failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the EFCC admitted it had not investigated several of the claims made by the defendant, thus failing to establish unlawful enrichment.
Additionally, the court directed that funds seized from Thomas by the EFCC be returned within 14 days, subject to the payment of a ₦10 million fine. The fine related to his conviction on count five, which involved exceeding the ₦5 million cash transaction threshold permitted by law.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, EFCC counsel and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ekele Iheanacho, argued that the trial judge erred in law and relied on “imaginary and fanciful doubt” in dismissing the charges in counts 1, 2, 3, and 7.
The EFCC maintained that it had provided documentary and oral evidence showing that Thomas could not reasonably explain a significant increase in his income. The Commission said this inconsistency undermined the defendant’s claims and supported a conclusion of money laundering.
Citing Section 19(5) of the Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment) Act, the EFCC argued that the burden of proof shifted to Thomas, who failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the origin of $2,198,000.00 in his possession. The Commission further asserted that his defence did not meet the standard of reasonableness required to discharge this burden.
The EFCC also faulted the trial court for refusing to forfeit the funds to the Federal Government, asserting that unchallenged evidence showed the defendant’s farm paid no taxes, nor did he personally pay taxes beyond those linked to his public office income.
“The respondent is not entitled to benefit from the proceeds of illegality in any form,” the EFCC stated, urging the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s ruling and order the forfeiture of the $2.198 million.
The appeal seeks a review of the court’s refusal to apply asset forfeiture measures and to reconsider the extent to which the evidence supported a guilty verdict on the majority of the charges.