Justice Abubakar Talba, the
Federal High Court, Abuja, judge who sentenced John Yusufu, former director in
the Police Pension Office, to two years in prison with an option of N250,000
fine on each of the three counts, breached an agreement reached by parties in
the case.
In the controversial ruling
delivered on January 28, Mr. Talba sentenced Yusufu, who pleaded guilty to
three of 20 counts charges bordering on embezzlement of over N23 billion, to
two years in prison but gave the accused person an option of fine.
The ruling drew anger from many
Nigerians, including legal experts, who believe that granting an option of fine
for such a monumental fraud would encourage corruption by public officers.
But Justice Talba’s judgment
equally shocked parties in the case, particularly the prosecution team.
Icirnigeria.org authoritatively gathered that the prosecution and defense
lawyers actually had an agreement on specific outcomes of the case which
included a custodian sentence which was breached by the judge.
Mr. Yusufu, it was learnt, had
approached officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC who
investigated the embezzlement case against him and others seeking a deal.
The accused person’s offer was
that he be made a prosecution witness. He promised to expose all the rot that
had gone on at the Police Pension Office for years and testify against his
former colleagues for a deal that would ostensibly free him.
However, the EFCC did not take
the bait, arguing that its investigations had been so thorough that it had
unearthed all that transpired in the pension office. It argued further that Mr.
Yusufu had been neck deep in the criminal diversion of pensioners’ funds to be
let free.
However, Mr. Yusufu and his
lawyers came up with another offer, a plea bargain deal which would entail him
pleading guilty to lesser charges in order to get a light sentence. When the
EFCC and its lawyers were approached with the deal, the commission insisted
that two conditions being met.
First, it said that Yusufu had to
give full disclosure of his assets and forfeit everything he had acquired with
the money he got from pension funds. Also, the commission and its legal team
insisted that the accused person must receive custodian sentence, meaning that
he had to spend some time in jail.
A source in the commission said
that the anti-graft agency considered the plea bargain deal because if it could
get Mr. Yusufu to agree to voluntarily declare and forfeit his ill-gotten
assets, it would save it time and resources.
Besides, the commission reasoned,
if it could get one of the pension thieves to plead guilty, it would strengthen
the case against the others who had pleaded not guilty. In any case,
prosecutors and investigators also reasoned, a key goal of the whole case was
to retrieve what had been stolen, so it was fine by them if Mr. Yusufu was
offering to relinquish his loot willingly.
On its part, the defense team
agreed to these conditions but pleaded that the accused person be charged with
lesser offences that would carry minimal sentence. That was why Mr. Yusufu was
charged under Section 309 of the Penal code, the maximum sentence of which is
two years in jail.
Our source disclosed that when
the two parties reached an agreement on the details of the deal, they
approached Justice Talba. Although no formal agreement was written or signed by
any of the parties, the two side agreed with the judge that first, the accused
person would declare and forfeit all assets he acquired with proceeds of the
funds he stole.
Secondly, the parties agreed that
he would be given custodian sentence with no option of fine. The EFCC lawyers
were very insistent on this, arguing that in spite of the plea bargain, the
accused must serve a jail term to serve as deterrent to others. It was however
left to the discretion of the judge whether to apply the maximum sentence of
two years or not.
However, prosecution lawyers were
shocked on February 28 as the judge sentenced Mr. Yusufu to the maximum of two
years in prison but with an option of fine which was not in the agreement.
Some in the prosecution team
alleged that Mr. Yusufu and his lawyers went behind to “induce” the judge to
give him an option of fine. After his sentencing, Mr. Yusuf drove home a free
man after paying the total of N750 imposed on him by the judge.
However, the convict was mistaken
if he thought he had succeeded in playing a fast one on the prosecution and the
EFCC. What he did not know was that investigators had discovered that he did
not make full disclosure of his assets and finances as an account controlled by
him was discovered.
He was discovered to own a
company, SY-AGlobal Services Limited, into which he had kept N250 million. Two
other account controlled by him were also found containing N29 million and
N10million.
Based on this, Mr. Yusufu was
rearrested the next day after he gained his dubious freedom and slammed with a
four – count charge of false declaration of assets before Justice Adamu Bello
of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Under the EFCC (establishment)
Act 2004, the new charge against Mr. Yusufu carries a five years prison
sentence without any option of fine.
Section 27 (30 of the Act states:
(a) knowingly fails to make full
disclosure of his assets and liabilities ;or
(b) knowingly makes a declaration
that is false; or
(c) fails, neglects or refuses to
make a declaration or furnishes any information required, in the Declaration of
Assets Form;
commits an offence under this Act and is
liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of five years.”
Justice Bello ordered the accused
person to be remanded in Kuje prison pending the March 1 date for commencement
of trial.
0 comments:
Post a Comment