In the High Court of Lagos State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE IN THE IKEJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT NO 33, CRIMINAL DIVISION IKEJA BEFORE HON JUSTICE J.O.K. OYEWOLE TODAY MONDAY THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009.

SUIT NO: ID/71c/2008

BETWEEN

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA………………COMPLAINANT

AND

1. CHIEF OLABODE GEORGE……………………………DEFENDANT 2. ARCHITECT AMINU DABO.…………………………...DEFENDANT 3. CAPTAIN O. ABIDOYE…………………………………DEFENDANT 4. ALHAJI ABDULAHI AMINU TAFIDA………………...DEFENDANT 5. ALHAJI ZANNA MAIDARIBE………………………….DEFENDANT 6. ENGR SULE ALIYU……………………………………..DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

The defendants were arraigned before this Court on the 8th of August, 2008 on a 163 count information to which they all pleaded not guilty.

Subsequently, the said information was amended via the amended information containing 68 counts dated 24th October, 2008 to which each of the defendants once again pleaded not guilty. The said 68 counts are hereinafter set out in full as follows:

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 1ST COUNT Inflation of contract prices contrary to Section 22 (3) of The Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 2ND COUNT Inflation of contract prices contrary to section 22 (3) of The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 3RD COUNT Inflation of contract prices contrary to Section 22 (3) of The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

2 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 20th July, 2003 within the Ikeja Judicial division did inflate the price of the contract awarded to Docklard maritime Ltd for the supply and commissioning of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault Test Van with distance measurement tech & high tension instruments at Lagos port complex from € 170, 437.50 (being the prevailing price at the time of the award of the contract) to €236,250.00.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 4TH COUNT Inflation of contract prices contrary to section 22(3) of The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 5TH COUNT Inflation of contract prices contrary to section 22(3) of The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

3 R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 23rd December, 2002 within the Ikeja Judicial division did inflate the price of the contract awarded to Flohr & company for the supply and installation of 3rd generating set, 16 Cyclinder water cooled, Cummins Industrial diesel engine, operating at 1500 rpm coupled with brushless Stanford alternator 1645KVA, 11KV, 3PH, 50HZ continuous output at Apapa from €163,342.60 (being the prevailing price at the time of the award of the contract) to €211,090.00.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 6TH COUNT Inflation of contract prices contrary to Section 22 (3) of The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 7TH COUNT Inflation of contract prices contrary to section 22(3) of The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

4 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 8TH COUNT Conspiracy to disobey lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 517 of the Criminal code Cap 32 Vol. 2, laws of the Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large),Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, conspired to disobey lawful order issued by a constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001 on Policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastals.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 9TH COUNT Disobedience of lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastals, by approving an award of contract for N40 million (Forty Million Naira) to Danjuma Kibo Company Nigeria Limited, for the supply of five (5) numbers Remote Sensing Satellite Imageries to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

5 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 10TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 203 of criminal Code Cap 32 vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large) Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for N49, 595,448 million (Forty nine Million Five Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight naira) to Alliance Tech. Limited for the supply and installation of HT Panel and Accessories for Federal Lighter Terminal Onne to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 11TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

6 Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for N35,348,166 million (Thirty five million, three hundred and Forty eight Thousand, One Hundred and sixty six naira) to Alba Nigeria Entreprises for the supply of one (1) No. 70KVA Perkins Generating Set and Installation of L.T. panel at (NIIT) Zaria to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 12TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for N48,890,803.50 million (forty eight million, eight Hundred and Ninety Thousand, eight Hundred and Three naira and Fifty kobo) to Flohr Import Export GMBH for the supply and installation of HT Panel and Accessories for main station and substation No. 6 at Port Harcourt (P/H) to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 13TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

7 Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) some time in 2001, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Divison, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular, No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contract in Government Ministries and parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $294,601.65 million (Two Hundred and Ninety four thousand six Hundred and One Dollars and Sixty Five Cents) to Underwater Engineering Limited for retrieval of collapsed 250 ton reinforced concrete structural element submerged in water to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 14TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director, Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) some time in 2001, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial divison, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular, No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contract in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $ 500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) to Carverton Marine Limited for 52 Hyster Cargo Handling Plant to the Nigera Ports Authority (NPA) which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 15TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

8 PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chariman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Curcular, No. F15775 dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award for contract for $ 265,950 (Two hundred and Sixty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and fifty dollars) to Badru Rabiu & Sons limited for supply of one (1) No Mobile Crane (3 tons) for Port Harcourt Port Dockyard to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE -16TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by Constituted Authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos state of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect amine Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular, No. F15775 dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award for contract for $284, 501 (Two Hundred and eighty four Thousand five hundred and one dollar) to Mog Holdings Limited for supply of Marine engine with 1 (one) gearbox, GM 12V 71 series for its “Bonny” in Apapa Dockyard to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

9 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 17TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos state of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria thorough the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $665,372 (six Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred and seventy Tow Dollars) to Flohr mill Nigeria Limited to add cost of fund for the above project to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 18TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria, Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award

10 of contract for $16,868, 086.33 (Sixteen Million, eight Hundred and Sixty Eight Thousand and Eighty Six dollars and thirty three cents) to Flohr Mills Nigeria Limited for civil works for the strengthening of the Quays at Berth 1,2, and 3 in Apapa Port and Channel from Harbour enforcement to the turning basin to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 19TH COUNT. Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large) Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular NoF15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $245,700 ( Two Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Seven hundred Dollars) to Noble Gate Projects Limited for supply of 27 no. Bridgestone Dyna Audi “A” Fender CDA-A600MD X 3.5.M Fender Bodies Port Harcourt to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 20TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

11 Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal ministry of Finance, in circular no F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $252,375.75 (Two Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars and Seventy Five Cents) to MOG Holdings limited for supply of marine engine with 1 (one) gearbox, GM 12V 71 series for its P.C. Umuakpu in Apapa Dockyard to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 21ST Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director, Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel OMOkhomon (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $321,360 (three Hundred and Twenty one Thousand three hundred and sixty dollars) to Alliance Technique for major repairs on diesel engine No 3 MWM TBD 400-8K, 1000KVA, 1000rpm, 11 KV at Calabar Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 22ND COUNT

12 Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomon (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $284, 501 (Two Hundred and Eighty four Thousand Five hundred and One Dollar) to Carverton Marine Limited for supply of Pilot Cutter “Kiri” with Gearbox with 1 (one) 12V 92 for warri Dockyard to the Nigeria ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 23RD COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted Authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

13 Sixty Five Euro and seventy one Pence) to Kalmer West Africa limited for rehabilitation of accidented Kalmar Container Handler to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 24TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted Authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomon (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £403,920 (four Hundred and Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty Euros) to Cobalt marine Limited for supply of 2 (Two) No. Mafi Stabdard roll Tractors at RoRo Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 25TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

14 issued by constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular no. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving and award of contract of £403,920 (Four Hundred and Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Euros) to Seabridge Overseas limited for supply of 2 (two) No Mafi Goodeneck at Container Terminal Apapa to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 26TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 11th day of December, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £354, 495 (Three Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, four Hundred and ninety five Euro) to Flohr & Company for supply and installation of 25m flood light poles with light fittings at Kirikiri Lighter terminal Phase II to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 27TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

15 Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £345,925 (Three Hundred and Forty Five Thousand, Nine hundred and Twenty Five Euros) to Dateks Limited for replacement and installation of 6 Nos 11 KV High Tension panels with accessories at substation “C” Tin Can Island port Lagos to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 28TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos Sate of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of May, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular no, F15775 dated 27th June, 2001, on Policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £236,250 (Two hundred and Thirty six Thousand two hundred and fifty euros) to Docklard maritime limited for supply and commissioning of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault test van with distance measurement tech & high tension instrument at Lagos Port Complex to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

16 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 29TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 6th day of may, 2003 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contract in Government Ministries and parastatals, by approving on award of contracts for €354,495 (Three hundred and fifty four thousand, four hundred and ninety five Euros) to Flohr and Company Limited for supply and installation and commissioning of 25m floor light poles with fittings at Kirikiri Lighter Terminal Phase 1 to the Nigeria ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 30TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

17 for €354,495 (Three hundred and fifty four thousand, four hundred and ninety five Euros) to Lawrence Int’l Limited for impresses current cathode protection, the steel pile wall of berth 8, TCIP to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 31ST COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 VOL.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr. B. G. Yakassai (now at large), on or about 18th day October, 2002 at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No. F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for $259,130 (Two hundred and fifty nine thousand, one hundred and thirty Dollars) to Deckcrown and Haskoning Topographic Survey of Moleses for Hydographic to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPN), which was for Hydographic to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 32nd COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigerian Ports authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr. Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large) on or about 18th day of October, 2002.at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful

18 order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001 on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministres and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £204,395 (Two Hundred and four Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety Five Pounds) to Flohr & Company for supply and installation of 11KV control synchronizing panel with protection circuit, load output metering, preparedtor parallel operation with existing generating set at Apapa to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular. STATEMENT OF OFFECNE – 33RD COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos Sate of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and awards of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £253,500 (Two hundred and fifty three Thousand, five Hundred pounds) to L.N. Engineering limited to complete replacement of obsolete High Tension Panel with breaker at s/s Tin Can, Apapa to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 34TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

19 Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.g. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £253,500 (Two Hundred and fifty three thousand, five hundred pounds) to Complete Engineering Services Limited to complete replacement of obsolete high tension panels at Sub-station “E” Tin Can Island, Lagos to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 35TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £185,775 (One Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand, seven Hundred and seventy Five Pounds) to Danjuma Kibo & Co. nig. Limited to complete replacement of obsolete H.T. panels with breakers at power house/main s/s TCIP to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

20 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 36TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobyeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £180,000 (One Hundred and Eighty thousand Pounds) to Martinek International Investment Nigeria Limited for supply of Multibeam Echosounders six Nos for Hydrographic to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 37TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted Authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

21 of contract for £211,500 (Two Hundred and Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Pounds) to Melsmore Limited for supply of Multi –purpose Hydraulic Power pack anti Pollution Equipment Onne Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 38TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICUALRS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobyeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £252, 375 (Two Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand, Three Hundred and seventy Five pounds) to Carverton Marine Limited for supply of main engine with gearbox to PC Umuahia at Port-Harcourt to the Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 39TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

22 R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobyeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £284,501 (Two Hundred and eighty Four Thousand, five hundred and One Pounds) to Carverton Marine Limited for supply of main pilot cutter Kiri at Warri Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 40TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £202, 500 (Two Hundred and Two Thousand, five Hundred Pounds) to Deckcrown Limited for supply of anti Pollution Equipment for Onne Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 41ST COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

23 Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £144,000 (One Hundred and forty four Thousand pounds) to Nautica Seatrade Limited for supply of anti Pollution Equipment for Onne Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 42ND COUNT. Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £251,600 (Two Hundred and Fifty One thousand, Six Hundred Pounds) to Niboreg General Procurement for supply of 200 units of duraline hose and 8 smoke extractors at Apapa port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 43RD COUNT

24 Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £377,250 (Three Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty pounds) to Lawrence International company for 150 Nos. foam company for Eastern Operations to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 44TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria ports authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £264,765 (Two Hundred and Sixty four Thousand, Seven

25 Hundred and sixty Five Pounds) to Alba Nigeria enterprises for 10 units of FRP Aerodynamic Apapa Port, Lagos (Mobile Inland Inductor) to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 45TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £2,480,000 (Two million, Four Hundred and Eighty Thousand pounds) to Rynwal Shipyard for supply of Fast Boom layer Boats to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 46TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

26 order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £228,880 (Two hundred and Twenty eight Thousand, eight Hundred and eighty Pounds) to Jowiz Nigeria Limited for supply of Fast Boom Layer Boats to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 47TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £290, 216 (Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixteen Pounds) to Jowiz Nigeria limited for supply of 1645 KVA 11K, 3 (Phase) 50 Hz Generator set, water-cooled Cummins to the Nigeria Ports authority (NPA), which as beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 48TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port authority

27 (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving an award of contract for £244,400 (Two Hundred and forty four Thousand, Four Hundred Pounds) to Marine and operations for two (2) numbers water tankers for fire services H/Q and Container Terminal to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 49TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 60% as mobilization fee on award of contract for £211, 500 (Two Hundred and Eleven Thousand five Hundred Pounds) to Melsmore limited for the supply of anti pollution equipment for Lagos and Warri Port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 50TH COUNT

28 Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 60% as mobilization fee on award of contract for £157,925 (One Hundred and fifty seven thousand, nine hundred and Twenty Five Pounds) to G.H.P. Int’l Limited for the supply of Electro-Hydraulic plate, bending rolling machine to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 51st COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

29 eighty Two Thousand, seven hundred and Thirty six Pounds) to Matitech Int’l Limited for the supply of 4 Nos fairway Bouys for the Port of Lagos, Port Harcourt, Warri and Calabar to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 52nd COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 100% as mobilization fee on award of contract for £228,880 (Two hundred and Twenty eight Thousand, eight hundred and eighty Pounds) to Jowiz Nigeria Limited for the supply of 1645 KVA, 11KV 3-Phase, 50Hz connecting set, water couples with brustless standard alternator to the Nigeria Ports authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 53RD COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

30 R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 95% as mobilization fee on award of contract for €403,920 (Four hundred and Three Thousand, nine hundred and Twenty Euros) to Seabridge Overseas limited for the supply of mofitractors for use in container terminal to the Nigeria Ports authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 54TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilization fee on award of contract for €345,925 (Three hundred and forty five Thousand, nine Hundred and Twenty five Euros) to Dateks limited for the supply of replacement and installation of 6 No. 11KV high tension panel with accessories at sub-station C, Tin Can island to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 55TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

31 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilization fee on award of contract for €236,250 (Two hundred and thirty six thousand, two Hundred and fifty euros) to Dockland Martime Limited for the supply of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault test van with distance measurement tech HT instrument for use at Lagos port to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 56TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullabi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by Constituted Authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilization fee on award of contract for €236,250 (Two hundred and Thirty Six Thousand, two Hundred and Fifty Euros) to Lawrence Int’l Co. for the supply of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault test van with distance measurement tech HT instrument for use at port Harcourt to the Nigerian Ports authority

32 (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 57TH COUNT Disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 5th day of June, 2003, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial division, with intent to defraud, disobeyed lawful order issued by constituted authority to wit: the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, in Circular No F15775, dated 27th June, 2001, on policy guidelines for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals, by approving 75% as mobilization fee on award of contract for €175,900 (One Hundred and Seventy five Thousand, Nine hundred Euros) to project Wheel engineering for the replacement and installation of 3 No.11 KV High tension (existing transformer and spare panel with accessories fir use at sub-station B Tin-Can Island, Lagos) to the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), which was beyond your approved limit as contained in the said circular.

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 58TH COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

33 (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of N27, 075,000.00 (Twenty Seven million, Seventy five thousand naira) into two separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Dockyard Maritime limited for the supply of three (3) numbers of Cylinder rubber Fenders size 1000/500 x 500mm to Nigerian port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Minister of Transportation, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N20 million (Twenty Million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 59TH COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of $536,876.75 USD (Five Hudnred and Thirty-six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-five United state of America Dollars Seventy five Cents) into two separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Mog Holdings Limited for the supply of marine engine with 1 (one) gearbox, GM 12V 71 series for its “Bonny” in Apapa Dockyard to Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal minister of Transportation, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N20 million (Twenty Million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 60TH COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

34 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of $797,850.00usd (Seven hundred and ninety-seven Thousand, eight hundred and fifty United States of America Dollars) into three separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Belad Ventures Limited, Princadaz Nigeria limited and T. Baas Creation Limited for the supply of one (1) number Terex Telescopic Mobile Crane (30 tons) for Warri Port Dockyard to Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive Council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty million naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 61ST COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th day of October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of $441,664.00 USD (Four Hundred and Forty-one Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Four United states of America dollars) into two separate contracts which sum was beyond your approved limits and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Lawrence International Company and Niboreg General Procurement for the

35 supply of Cathodic Protection of steel Sheet Pipewell of Berth 8 Tin- Can island port Lagos to Nigeria Ports authority (NPA), and act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 62ND COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 6th day of June, 2003 at Lagos within Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €807,840.00 (Eight Hundred and Seven Thousand, eight Hundred and Forty Euros) into two separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Cobalt Marine limited and Seabridge Overseas Limited for the Supply of two (2) numbers Mafi Stabdard roll Tractors at Roro Port to Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) an at which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive Council being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50million (Fifty Million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 63RD COUNT Abuse of office contrary to section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

36 R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 16th day of October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €708,990.00 (Seven Hundred and Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety euros) into two separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Flohr and Company Limited for the supply, installation and commissioning of 25m floor light poles with fitting at Kirikiri Lighter Terminal Phase 1 to Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 64TH COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 16th day of October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €697,725.00 (Six Hundred and Ninety-seven Thousand, seven Hundred and Twenty five Euros) into three separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Project Wheel engineering and Dateks limited for the replacement & installation of 3 Nos. KV High Tension (incomer, outgoing Transformer) panels with accessories at Substation “B” Tin-Can Island Port Lagos to Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive Council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 65TH COUNT

37 Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 6th June, 2003 at Lagos within Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of €472,500.00 (Four Hundred and seventy Two Thousand, five Hundred Euros) into two separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Dockland Maritime limited and Lawrence international Limited for the supply and commissioning of 3 phase 7p KVA cable fault Test Van with distance measurement tech & high tension instrument at Lagos Port Complex of Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Minister of Transportation, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N20 million (Twenty million naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 66TH COUNT Abuse of office contrary to section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria ports authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of £934,581.00 (Nine Hundred and Thirty-four Thousand, five hundred and Eighty-one British Pound

38 Sterling) into four separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to Jowiz Nigeria Limited and Flohr and Company for the supply of 1645KVA 11K, 3 (phase) 50Hz Generator set, water-cooled Cummins Industrial Diesel engine operating at 1500 RPM coupled with a Brushless Stanford Alternator, continuous output at Continental Shipyard, Apapa Port Complex to Nigerian Port Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 67TH COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja Judicial Division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of £869,575.02 (Eight Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, five Hundred and seventy-five British pound sterling tow pence) into four separate contracts, which sum as beyond your approved limits, and subsequently awarded the split contracts to L.N. Engineering Limited, complete Engineering services limited and Martinek International Investment Nigeria limited for complete replacement of obsolete High Tension Panels with Breakers at S/S Tin-Can, Apapa to Nigerian port authority (NPA), and act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive Council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE 68TH COUNT Abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Cap 32 Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

39 Chief Olabode George, former Chairman Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), Architect Aminu Dabo, former Managing Director Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), Captain O. Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe, Engr Sule Aliyu, Prince Victor Agu, (now at large), Engr B.G. Yakassai (now at large), Emmanuel Omokhomion (now at large), and Mr. R.S. Anah (now at large), on or about 18th October, 2002 at Lagos within Ikeja judicial division, while being employed in the public service of the Federation of Nigeria as board members of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), with intent to defraud, abuse the authority of your office regarding award of contracts, by splitting one contract in the sum of £346,500 (Three hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Five Hundred British Pound Sterling) into two separate contracts, which sum was beyond your approved limits, and nautical Seatrade limited for the supply of Anti Pollution Equipment for Onne port to Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), an act which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the right of the Federal Executive Council, being the appropriate authority to award contracts in excess of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira).

Trial started immediately thereafter in the course of which 10 witnesses testified for the prosecution while only one witness, the 1st defendant testified for the defence. Prosecution tendered 20 exhibits while the Defence tendered 9 exhibits.

PW1 was Ayoola Elijah Ajala a Chief Superintendent of Police attached to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (hereinafter called EFCC) as investigator.

His evidence in chief was that he was co-opted into the Committee set up by the Federal Government to review the activities of the Nigerian Ports Authority under the chairmanship of the then Executive Chairman of the EFCC, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu. For ease of reference the said Committee shall hereinafter in this judgment be referred to as “the Ridadu Committee”.

He outlined the terms of reference of the said Committee and stated that it submitted its report to the Government which then forwarded it to the EFCC for more detailed investigation but he however could not participate in the said investigation as he was transferred out of Lagos. He identified a certified true copy of the report of the said Committee and it was admitted as exhibit P1.

40 Under cross-examination from the lead counsel for the 1st defendant Mr Ayanlaja (SAN), he testified that he was not a signatory to exhibit P1 and that the defendants were invited by the said Committee.

Since he took no part in the subsequent investigation he could not testify about it but identified minutes of the 11th Board meeting of the NPA and it was admitted as exhibit D1. Shown portions of the said exhibit D1 relating to contracts alleged in the charge to have been inflated he stated that no inflation was apparent on the face thereof and would rather leave detailed testimony to the investigators.

He stated that the work of the Ribadu Committee extended beyond the board to the entire NPA and that the 1st defendant appeared before the said committee but he was not part of those who interacted with him personally.

He stated further that to effectively discharge its functions the committee co- opted professionals from various governmental institutions including the EFCC and he headed the EFCC group.

He was confronted with a certified true copy of the minutes of the 9th board of directors meeting of the NPA and another certified true copy of the minutes of the 11th board of directors meeting of the NPA and they were admitted as exhibits D2 and D3 respectively. From the two exhibits no contract was seen to have originated from the NPA board, no inflation of contracts was apparent; he could not identify any split contract and not being an expert on pricing he could not testify on it.

He listed the contract approval levels identified by him in NPA and indicated the difference between the board and management levels.

Under further cross-examination from the learned lead counsel for the 2nd defendant, Mr Adesina (SAN) he stated that was not aware of any government white paper on exhibit P1 and was equally not aware it was rejected.

To his knowledge no contractor involved in the Counts being tried was interviewed by the Ribadu Committee, and he also knew that the NPA board used a 1999 guideline for the contracts awarded in the period under review but he was not aware of how the 2001 financial guideline was communicated to the NPA.

41 He stated that he was aware of a price survey unit in the NPA but would not know how it worked. He however insisted that the board of the NPA had a duty to verify every contract before approving it.

Shown exhibits D1 and D2 once again, he observed that the apparent contents thereof cannot be conclusive as indicated from later investigation and that a representative of the supervising Ministry of Transport participated in the board meetings.

Cross-examined further by Mr Ojo the lead counsel for the 3rd Defendant, he stated that although he was not aware that exhibit P1 was adopted by the Federal Government it was referred to the EFCC for further investigation.

He further stated that the defendants sitting as board members of the NPA had responsibility to approve or reject contracts.

Under cross-examination from Mr Sanni for the 4th defendant he stated that the 4th defendant was invited by the Ribadu Committee, that to his knowledge none of the defendants benefited from the awarded contracts and that none of the benefiting companies belonged to them.

Mr Ukoh the learned counsel for the 5th defendant adopted previous cross- examinations of other defence counsel while the lead counsel for the 6th defendant Mr Farounbi cross-examined him further and he stated that he never met the 6th defendant before coming to Court to testify and was not aware of his invitation by the Ribadu Committee.

He was shown exhibit D2 but could not explain why other named board members were not charged along with the defendants.

He reiterated that no contract originated from the board or 6th defendant in particular and that although the contracts were expected to have been vetted by professionals the board still had responsibility to reject or approve any contract placed before it.

He was re-examined by Mr Hassan the then lead prosecutor and he clarified the circulars on board approval levels. He insisted that the board was not bound to approve all contracts recommended to it by the management.

42 PW2 was Engineer Mustapha Bukar a senior civil servant and one time director of Maritime in the Federal Ministry of Transport.

His evidence in chief was that in October 2003 he served as Chairman of the Administrative Panel set up by the then Minister of Transport to review contracts awarded by the NPA between 2001 and 2003.

In the course of his said assignment, he interacted with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants and identified the two government circulars which formed the basis of the review exercise as well as the interim and final reports of his Committee. They were admitted as exhibits P2 to P5 respectively.

He highlighted some of the irregularities noted by his Committee and reflected in its reports.

Cross-examined by Mr Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant he stated that the inclusion in his committee of a person who had previously expressly his grievances about activities of the NPA leadership did not affect its objectivity as the committee also noted the incongruity and ensured the said person played no prominent role in its activities. He denied that his report was rejected but stated that it led to more detailed investigation.

His committee found that no contract originated from the board and although exhibits P2 and P3 came in the course of the life of the NPA board in which defendants served, the circular exhibit P3 was brought to their attention by the Ministry’s representative on the board who later testified as PW4 and was not charged along with the defendants.

While he was aware that government parastatals differed in functions and revenue base, he was also aware that NPA generated its own revenue but he knew nothing of the expenditure limit of the NPA board prior to 2001.

He was shown exhibit P5 and stated that he did not come across any contract that was inflated or split at the board level as these took place at lower levels and while not in agreement with the J.K. Randle price report noted that NPA did not use its internal price intelligence units.

Further cross-examined by Mr Adesina (SAN) for the 2nd defendant his attention was drawn to the portion of exhibit P1 referring to government’s

43 views about his report but he insisted that his report was not rejected as the terms of reference of the later Ribadu Committee differed from his.

He once again denied being aware of the previous expenditure limit of the NPA board prior to 2001 and stated that the portion of his report exhibit P5 on the subject was based on information received by the Committee.

Shown the received stamp date on exhibit P3, he stated that it was an error.

Under cross-examination from Mr. Ojo for the 3rd defendant, he stated that he did not know if his report exhibit P5 was adopted by the Federal Government and insisted that although there was no NPA stamp on exhibit P3 it was deemed received by all those it was addressed to.

He further stated that his committee disagreed with the Randle price report and did not use it.

The learned counsel for the 4th defendant adopted previous cross- examinations by other defence counsel and under cross-examination from Mr. Ukoh for the 5th defendant he denied being aware that his committee was a fall out of the then feud between the 1st defendant and the then Minister of Transport. He admitted that his committee did not invite the 5th defendant and he never met him before appearing in court.

Under final cross-examination from Mr Farounbi for the 6th defendant he stated that the 6th defendant was also not invited by his committee and he never met him as well before coming to testify in court. He would not know if any of the companies which benefited from the contracts belonged to the 6th defendant and agreed that exhibit P3 emanated from the Ministry of Water Resources where he presently serves and not Transport.

He was not re-examined.

PW3 was Mr Bamanga Bello an operative of the EFCC. His evidence in chief was that he was co-opted into the Ribadu Committee and led the subsequent EFCC investigations based on the two Committees’ reports; exhibits P1 and P5 in the course of which assignments he interacted with the defendants.

44 In the course of the investigations he examined various documents including minutes of board meetings of the NPA which revealed that irregular contracts were awarded at the 9th and 11 board meetings of the NPA. To determine foreign exchange values, he contacted the Central Bank of Nigeria and after examining the minutes exhibits D1, D2 and D3, relating them to the government circulars exhibit P2 and P3 and applying yardsticks for fair pricing adopted by the Ribadu Committee, he came up with schedules of contracts inflated, split or beyond approval levels. He identified the document to which was attached the prevailing rates in 2001 to 2003 obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria as well as the schedules he made and they were all admitted as exhibits P6 to P9 respectively.

He was shown exhibit P1A and he went through it in details explaining the various entries therein.

Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant he gave his academic qualifications and professional experience. He explained that contract pricing was handled by a technical sub committee which he was not part of but that the criteria used were standard and not arbitrary.

He stated that his investigations took cognizance of the NPA Act and asserted that from the minutes exhibit D2 the defendants were aware of the financial guideline exhibit P3 and could at the stage it was brought to their notice recall all contracts already awarded at that meeting which were beyond the new approval limits.

He further stated that the defendants admitted knowledge of exhibit P3 in their various extra judicial statements and that he was aware of the various composition of the NPA board during the period under review as well as the various ports under the NPA.

He was shown exhibits P6, P7 and P8 and he stated that apart from the minutes of meetings, he also saw the contract documents relating thereto and explained certain items said to be split.

He agreed that the minutes showed no resolution splitting contracts as the board approved what was presented by management but insisted the approvals were improper and could have been withheld.

45 He confirmed that the Nigerian Ports Authority Act, 1999 was used as guidelines and also agreed that the NPA is subject to the Minister of Transport but pointed out that going by exhibit D2 the government guideline in issue was forwarded by the said Minister of Transport. He read relevant portions of the said exhibit D2.

He identified the covering letter of the Secretary of the NPA to which was attached the guidelines said to have prevailed in NPA prior to 2001 and both were admitted together as exhibit D4.

He conceded that apart from the minutes of the board meeting he did not see any copy of the letter from the Ministry of Transport conveying exhibit P3 to the NPA and when his attention was drawn to the list of members of the Ribadu Committee stated in exhibit P1, he insisted that he was a co-opted member.

When shown discrepancies in the dates in exhibit P1A vis a vis the minutes of the board meetings, he explained that he was guided by the dates in letters of award of the contracts involved.

He reiterated that contracts were awarded by the defendants at prices far above the fair prices determined by the Ribadu Committee and stated that all the allegations now forming the present charge were put to the 1st defendant and his co defendants when they were interviewed individually.

He conceded that as at 2005 when the Committee sat the 2001 financial guidelines was not being used in the NPA but rejected the suggestion that it was because the 2001 guideline was never received. He was shown a letter from the Managing Director of the NPA confirming the prevailing guideline and it was admitted as exhibit D5.

He listed the various levels in the NPA at which contracts are awarded and the various personalities who were managing directors of the NPA in the years under review but pointed out that all the contracts found to be irregular were awarded at the 9th and 11th board meetings during the tenure of the 2nd defendant.

He agreed with the senior defence counsel that all the contracts involved emanated from the end users and that none originated from the board.

46 He was shown exhibit D3 and he identified certain items therein as examples of an obviously split contract which the board to which the defendants belonged approved thereby shirking their responsibilities.

He also stated that it was found that the NPA disregarded the in house price intelligence unit and acknowledged that some of the board members involved were not arraigned with the defendant which was outside his purview not being a prosecutor but insisted that the defendants were charged based on their personal roles as board members.

Cross-examined further by Mr Adesina (SAN) for the 2nd defendant he once again listed the various contract awarding levels in the NPA but could not remember off hand the names of all the board members of the NPA in the period under review, he however remembered that the secretaries were invited by the Ribadu Committee. When his attention was drawn to the list of members of members of the board in the said period who were not charged with the defendants, he insisted that the prosecution was not selective.

His attention was then drawn to exhibit D5 and he agreed that in 2005 the pre 2001 expenditure guideline was still being used in NPA well after the defendants had ceased being members of the board.

He was shown the certified true copy of a letter from the secretary to the NPA stating the functions, powers and procedure of the NPA board and it was admitted as D6. He stated that part of the documents factored into the price mechanism of the Ribadu Committee was the J.K. Randle report and the certified true copy of the reaction of the NPA leadership to the said report was admitted as exhibit D7.

Under further cross-examination from Mr. Ojo for the 3rd defendant he stated that the NPA failed to put a due process team in place and that the board had supervisory jurisdiction. He insisted that the identified item in exhibit D3 was split and that the defendants approved inflated contracts denying once again that prosecution was selective.

When cross-examined by Mr. Sanni for the 4th defendant, he stated that the 4th defendant appeared before his investigation team after PW1 had been transferred out of Lagos.

47 Learned counsel for the 5th defendant adopted the cross-examinations of the other defence counsel while under cross-examination from Mr Farounbi for the 6th defendant he insisted that the defendants represented the board of the NPA in the period under review.

He stated further that the 6th defendant was invited and appeared before his investigation team and when shown exhibits D2 and D3 he stated that the board approved recommended prices which were inflated even if it never increased any recommended price.

When re-examined he said that he was co-opted into the Ribadu Committee and participated in the deliberations.

PW4 was Alhaji Wali Masur Kurawa a civil servant who sat on the same board of the NPA with the defendants as ex officio member representing the Ministry of Transport.

His evidence in chief was that he attended one out of the three meetings of the NPA board constituting the 9th Board meeting covered by exhibit D2. At the meeting he attended, he drew the attention of the board to the new approved expenditure guidelines but they refused to comply. He identified exhibit P3 as a copy of the guidelines he drew the defendants’ attention to.

He confirmed that the said circular exhibit P3 extends to the NPA but would not know if it had been forwarded to the NPA prior to his bringing it to the board’s attention. However as the said circular was meant for immediate implementation he expected that it would had been sent to the Managing Director of the NPA.

He stated that none of the defendants objected at that meeting to the decision not to comply with exhibit P3 and explained that contracts awarded by the NPA board in foreign currency were usually calculated at the Central Bank of Nigeria rate.

Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant he was able to recall his invitation and testimony before the Ribadu Committee. Because he left the NPA in 2004 he was not aware of exhibit D5 but knew that prior to the circular exhibit P3 the approval guideline in NPA was the 1999 guideline which gave N60million ceiling to the board.

48 He stated that no contract was awarded at the third and last session of the 9th board meeting where he brought up the circular exhibit P3 and now recalled that he attended a previous session of the said 9th board meeting where contracts were awarded.

He stated further that communications between the Minister of Transport and the NPA would either be in writing to the Managing Director or through the Ministry’s representative on the board.

He reiterated that he would not know if the circular exhibit P3 had been communicated to the NPA before he did and that prior to that time he too was unaware of its existence. To his knowledge the board did not inflate or split any contract although board papers were usually delivered late which he complained about.

He agreed that if implemented exhibit P3 could cripple port activities and recommended enhanced limits for the NPA in his testimony before the Ribadu Committee same as the former Minister of Transport, Mr Abiye Sekibo. He identified the minutes of the Ribadu Committee related thereto and it was admitted as exhibit D8.

Under further cross-examination from Mr. Adesina (SAN) he confirmed that decisions of the board were joint but was not conversant with the operations of the departments in NPA.

He stated that no contract originated from the board and that none was awarded at a higher price than recommended by management. He further stated that due to its sensitive nature, NPA needed to be able to take quick decisions.

Further cross-examined by Mr Ojo for the 3rd defendant he stated that he was directed to bring up exhibit P3 at the board’s meeting when the Minister of Transport noted that NPA was not complying therewith and to make up for the lapse of the planning department in the Ministry which had responsibility for circulating such directives, the Minister then wrote and he circulated.

He insisted that exhibit P3 emanated from appropriate quarters.

49 Learned counsel for the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants adopted the previous cross- examinations of the other defence counsel.

When re-examined he identified exhibit D5 as the circular stipulating previous approval level but noted that it did not actually contain N60 million limit for the NPA board as he previously stated under cross-examination.

PW5 was Mr Usman Jida Shuwa a civil servant. His evidence in chief was that he is presently the director of administration in the Ministry of Interior but was the successor of PW4 in the Ministry of Transport. He knew all the defendants except the 1st defendant and was a full member of the Ribadu Committee, and chaired most of the meetings of the said committee in the absence of the substantive Chairman, Mallam Ribadu.

He recounted his wide experience in the Civil Service giving details of various positions previously held by him and identified exhibit D8 as minutes of several meetings of the said Ribadu Committee.

He also gave details of how the circular exhibit P3 emerged and stated that the NPA board failed to comply with it but rather continued to rely on the 1999 guidelines. The findings of his Committee as contained in exhibit P1 also included inflation and splitting of contracts. He identified exhibit D4 as the 1999 guidelines relied on by the NPA board.

He stated that Ministries were duty bound to convey government circulars to their parastatals which by the content of exhibit D2 was done in respect of exhibit P3 and that issues relating to inflation and splitting of contracts were handled by a technical sub-committee whose report was adopted by the larger Ribadu committee. He defined what constitutes splitting of contracts in government procurement parlance.

Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant he spelt out the communication channel between the Ministry of Transport and its parastatals and stated that although he saw no letter from the Minister of Transport to the NPA on exhibit P3 he was aware that PW4 brought it to the defendants’ attention as shown in exhibit D2.

He was sure that prior to exhibit P3 the financial guideline was not exhibit D4 as according to him no Minister had powers to unilaterally stipulate financial guideline for parastatals under him and produced the Government

50 financial guidelines which preceded exhibit P3 and it was admitted as exhibit D9.

He confirmed that no contract emanated from the board but contended that the board was not bound to approve all recommendations made to it. He admitted not being part of the Ministry of Transport during the period under review but could not ascertain whether exhibit D9 was shown to the defendants or PW4 by his committee even when shown the minutes of the proceedings of that Committee exhibit D8 and was not aware of any disciplinary measures taken against the signatory to exhibit D4 for writing the said letter.

His attention was drawn to the views of the then Minister of Transport that the implementation of exhibit P3 would ground the ports and in reaction thereto he stated that while this could be so, the right procedure was to bring the situation to the President’s attention for a waiver to be granted.

He stated further that his knowledge of the contracts involved emanated from the evidence presented to his Committee and was sure that defendants were confronted with allegations of contract splitting and inflation which they all denied.

Under further cross-examination from Mr. Adesina (SAN) for the 2nd defendant he stated that exhibit P3 was meant for all government ministries and parastatals including NPA and that none can claim exemption and further that after being made aware of exhibit P3 the defendants continued to award contracts in disregard thereof.

He recalled that he was posted to the Ministry of Transport in 2005 as Maritime Director but he never sat on the board of NPA as the board was not constituted during his tenure.

He was shown exhibit P1 and confirmed that it did not contain names of contractors involved in the Counts being tried and when shown exhibit D9 he also confirmed that the certification thereon was made by the EFCC but insisted that all Government Ministries and Parastatals got the said exhibit D9.

He stated that he did not sign exhibit P1 as Chairman since Mallam Nuhu Ribadu was the appointed Chairman and agreed with the learned senior

51 counsel that exhibit D4 preceded the defendants’ membership of the NPA board and that exhibit D6 written by the Legal Adviser to the NPA conforms with exhibit D4 which the defendants said they complied with.

Further cross-examined by Mr Ojo for the 3rd defendant he stated that he did not know if exhibit P1 was adopted by the Federal Executive Council.

He insisted that the board members of the NPA had responsibility to ensure that only proper contracts were approved and to also direct management in appropriate circumstances.

He said that while serving as Director of Maritime Services in the Ministry of Transport exhibit D4 was never brought to his attention and denied the suggestion that exhibit D9 was prepared for the purposes of this trial insisting it was a genuine government circular.

Mr. Sanni for the 4th defendant adopted the previous cross-examinations of the other defence counsel while he was cross-examined by Mr. Ukoh for the 5th defendant and he stated that government circulars on the face thereof never state the law enabling them.

Under cross-examination from Mr Farounbi for the 6th defendant he stated that only the 1st and 2nd defendants appeared before his Committee but he did not know the capacity in which the defendants were charged and was not aware of any other instance where anyone other than PW4 brought exhibit P3 to the attention of the defendants.

When re-examined by the learned prosecutor he stated that exhibit D9 was the appropriate operating financial guideline before exhibit P3 and not exhibit D4 which had no legal mandate.

PW6 was Mr Olanrewaju Yusuf Olaleye a quantity surveyor and civil servant in the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development.

His evidence in chief was that he has about 18 years professional experience and initially served as a pioneer consultant to the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit located in the Presidency otherwise called the Due Process Office before he was later absorbed into the Federal Civil Service.

52 He was a member of the Ribadu Committee and chaired the technical sub- committee which handled the issue of pricing of contracts for which exercise he co-opted relevant professionals from various governmental bodies related to NPA activities.

His technical sub-committee inspected all available contract records painstakingly and physically inspected various project sites where possible. Prices were determined using acceptable industry standards and at the end of the exercise they found some of the contract prices fair, some high and some indeterminable due to absence of documents. They also found incidents of splitting and inflation of contracts.

In line with standard professional practice, their findings were initially made across to the defendants and others affected for them to have the opportunity to respond and possibly provide justifying documents. They obtained responses from some of the past Managing directors and these responses were reflected in the final report but none of the board members responded.

He identified exhibit P1A as the findings of his Committee and explained how fair prices of the contracts involved were determined emphasizing that his Committee was thorough and fair.

Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant he denied being aware of any price intelligence unit in the NPA and did not personally ask about it. He also did not personally question the defendants when they appeared before the Committee as he was busy at the premises of the NPA with the activities of his technical sub-committee but he attended meetings of the main committee.

Despite the enormity of the necessary expenditure profile of the NPA which could be stifled with the implementation of exhibit P3 he still felt the proper thing was to obtain presidential waiver instead of willful disobedience.

He stated that he found that all contracts approved by the defendants originated from the user departments which did not include board members and that the board minutes did not reflect resolutions to split or inflate contracts but that the approvals made were irregular for failing to comply with government guidelines.

53 He stated further that due to the absence of resident due process teams in the NPA, it was impossible for him to identify the stage in the process when contracts splitting and inflation occurred but that the approvals by the defendants were not disputed.

He did not agree that the NPA was not covered by exhibits P2 and P3 and insisted that as directed by exhibit P2, the NPA board as final authority ought to have set up due process teams different from appraisal officers in use in NPA.

He further insisted that the defendants were afforded right of reply to the report of his technical sub-committee but failed to utilize it unlike past Managing Directors and Managers who exploited the opportunity.

He was of the view that PW4 was not a full member of the NPA board as he only represented the Ministry of Transport and when shown exhibit D9, the minutes of some of his Committee meetings he conceded that the only issue put to the 1st defendant was about approval beyond limit but he was resolute that a review of the minutes of the relevant NPA board meetings in question will reveal splitting of contracts.

He said that the term ‘split of contracts’ as shown in exhibits P2 and P3 had special meaning in procurement and that the defendants were notified in that sense but could not say whether exhibit P2 was received in the NPA. He specifically referred to pages 75 and 78 of exhibit D2 as example of a split contract which the defendants wrongly approved.

He stated that his committee was concerned about the entire approving and awarding authorities in the NPA which included the defendants and that the absence of due process teams allowed the prevalence of arbitrariness in the NPA although no appraisal officer confessed such to him.

He explained that before any contract could be approved by the Federal Executive Council it would be accompanied by a due process certificate unlike what obtained in the NPA board in which the defendants served.

He stated that he never personally met or interviewed PW4 as he interacted with some appraisal officers but was aware he represented the Ministry of Transport on the NPA board. He insisted that price determinants are standard and once again explained how fair prices in this instance were

54 arrived at. He agreed with the learned senior counsel that knowledge of exhibits P2 and P3 was crucial to compliance therewith.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Adesina for the 2nd defendant he pointed out that only the presidency had a due process department and that what NPA did not have in place was a due process team comprising relevant professionals. He further stated that all contracts ought to have a due process certificate but agreed that this was not indicated in exhibit P1, the committee’s report.

He maintained that he actively compiled exhibit P1A with his committee members and that he is a pioneer consultant on due process in the country.

He said that his price evaluation included cost of training and when his attention was drawn to exhibits D2 and D3 concerning contracts mentioned in Counts 1-7 whose awarded prices included cost of staff training, he agreed that it would affect the final price.

He also agreed that contracts awarded by the defendants were done at below contractor quotes and that none of the defendants worked as appraisal officers in NPA.

Concerning appropriate foreign exchange rates, he stated that he relied on exhibit P9 despite the date on the covering letter thereof but agreed that contractors were not bound to source their foreign currency needs from the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Shown exhibit P1 he conceded that none of the contractors involved in the counts being tried was interviewed by his Committee but however explained that this was deliberate to avoid possibility of prejudice.

He stated that he sent out his subordinates to find out prices from manufacturers representatives and agents locally and was well aware of the disagreements with the J.K. Randle prices but that his Committee only relied on some other aspects of the said report other than pricing.

When asked about the other publications and documents relied on for pricing guidance, he responded that they were not in court and could not recall their names in full offhand.

55 Under additional cross-examination from Mr. Ojo for the 3rd defendant, he stated that the defendants were concerned with contract approvals after their subordinates must have completed the preliminary stages. He maintained his earlier definition of contract splitting and insisted that the defendants approved split contracts even if from exhibits D2 and D3 they did not pass any resolution to split contracts.

Learned counsel for the 4th and 5th defendants adopted the previous cross- examinations of the other defence counsel while under more cross- examination from Mr Farounbi for the 6th defendant he stated that no single contract approved by the defendants had due process certification and that notwithstanding the content of exhibit P1, PW4 was not a full member of the board as he only represented the Ministry of Transport.

He agreed with the learned counsel that his sub-committee solely handled technical issues.

When re-examined by learned lead prosecutor, he stated that what guided his committee on foreign exchange was the attachment to exhibit P9 and not the covering letter.

PW7 was Mr Azuonye Okorocha a staff of the Central Bank of Nigeria. His evidence in chief was that his office received a letter from the EFCC asking for the prevailing foreign exchange rates from 2001 to 2003 and the said information was supplied. He identified exhibit P9 as the letter signed by him for the Central Bank of Nigeria and that the attachment thereto represented the requested rates for 2001 to 2003 which is system generated and unalterable.

Under cross-examination from Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) for the 1st defendant he stated that foreign exchange rates are determined on daily basis while the attachment to exhibit P9 does not reflect daily entries.

Under further cross-examination from Mr. Adesina (SAN) for the 2nd defendant he read the attachment to exhibit P9 showing monthly rates.

Learned counsel for the remaining defendants adopted the cross-examination already made and he was not re-examined.

56 PW8 was Mr Sanusi Mohammed an operative of the EFCC. His evidence in chief was that he got to know the defendants through his involvement in the investigation of this case in the course of which he supervised the extra judicial statements made to the EFCC by the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants. He identified the said statements and they were admitted as exhibits P10, P11, P12 and P13 respectively.

Cross-examined for the 1st defendant he stated that his only role was supervising the statements he tendered. Other defence counsel adopted the cross-examination made for the 1st defendant and he was not re-examined.

PW9 was Mr. Temilu Alkali also an operative of the EFCC. His evidence in chief was that he knew the defendants during the investigation of this case and personally interviewed the 1st and 2nd defendants when they made statements to the EFCC. He identified the statements made by the 1st defendant and they were admitted as exhibits P14 to P18 respectively.

Under cross-examination for the 1st defendant he insisted that he was present and supervised the making of exhibit P14 by the 1st defendant in Abuja and also witnessed the remaining ones in Lagos. He stated that his only role was in supervising the making of the statements in question.

He was not cross-examined by the remaining defence counsel and was also not re-examined.

PW10 was Mr Ibrahim Shetima an engineer with the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency otherwise called NIMASA. His evidence in chief was that he was co-opted into the technical sub-committee of the Ribadu Committee under the leadership of PW6 which dealt with issues of contract splitting and inflation. He saw documents relating to the contracts involved and as an electrical engineer visited most of the sites physically and also for price verification visited manufacturers, manufacturer’s representatives, agents and in some cases checked the internet.

He identified exhibit P1A as the findings of his sub-committee and pointed out item 18 thereon as an instance of split contract and item 4 as inflated contract and explained how he came to the conclusion.

57 Under cross-examination for the 1st defendant he stated that he was not aware of the professional leaning of the 5th defendant and never knew there was any engineer on the board of NPA.

He agreed that the contracts in question originated from end users and also agreed that what he saw on the internet was the price situation as at 2005 which would not contain maintenance and training costs factored in for many of the contracts in issue.

He stated that in 2005 he had about 3 years experience in procurement and that the contract documents relied on by him were available but not produced in court.

He further stated that the total yardstick for assessing the contract prices was provided by PW6 and that he personally visited the site of agenda item 13 of exhibit D2 with PW3.

He agreed that he was not the sole electrical engineer in the committee and did not work with exhibit D2 or any minutes or document prepared by the board but instead used the bill of quantities and contract award papers.

Further cross-examined for the 2nd defendant he stated that he did not know the capacity in which the defendants were charged or whether they were also NPA contractors. He insisted that his task in the committee included verification of prices.

Cross-examined further for the 3rd defendant he agreed that appraisal officers in NPA fixed prices and not the board.

Learned counsel for the 4th and 5th defendants adopted previous cross- examinations of the other counsel and in answer to the additional cross- examination for the 6th defendant he stated that the inflation of item 4 in exhibit P1A is included in the report and that he was not aware of the prices approved by the board.

When re-examined he stated that he limited his search on the internet to prices and did not consider staff training and maintenance.

With the consent of all defence counsel PW3 was recalled by the prosecution and he tendered the extra judicial statements made to the EFCC

58 by the 2nd defendant and they were admitted as exhibits P19 and P20 respectively.

He was not cross-examined by all the defence counsel and with his evidence the prosecution closed its case.

The defence opted to call evidence and the 1st defendant testified from the witness box as the sole defence witness.

He is Chief Olabode George an engineer and company director who described himself as a politician by vocation.

In his evidence in chief he traced his academic background and professional experience in the Nigerian Navy until his retirement and his political career in civil life afterwards. From 2001 to 2003 he was the Chairman of the Board of directors of the NPA and the other defendants were some of the directors who served with him on the said board. He listed those who served as members of his board including PW4 who were however left out of the present trial by the prosecution.

On being inaugurated they were briefed by the secretary of the board who gave then the enabling Act, standing orders of the board and the approved expenditure limits. His perusal of the said enabling Act made it clear to him that the sole authority representing the government to which the board was answerable was the Minister of Transport. Using exhibit D4 as example he pointed out that the standard communication between the Minister of Transport and the NPA is through the Managing Director of the NPA.

He stated that he understood the counts dealing with alleged splitting of contracts and denied he or the board he was part of, ever doing so. He used agenda 12 of exhibit D2 as an example to show how contracts were presented to the board by the executive director in charge of the user department with a recommendation based on the appraised price and eventually the resolution to award without splitting coming into the discussion.

He similarly denied the counts dealing with alleged inflation of contracts stating emphatically that no such act was undertaken by the board over which he presided as they never added to any recommended price.

59 He explained the functions of appraisal officers within the NPA stating that they had responsibilities for issues relating to consideration of quotations and recommendation of prices of items presented to the board for approval, the board had no responsibility to determine fair prices and only worked with recommended prices of management.

On allegations of awarding contracts beyond approval limits he stated once again that he understood the counts and explained what constituted the approval limits of the various contract awarding levels in the NPA based on the guidelines given to them on assumption of office and which still operated till date. According to him, the responsibility for setting approval limits rested with the Minister of Transport in consultation with the President and that due to its commercial and sensitive nature, subject to the directives of the Minister, NPA had financial autonomy.

He was shown exhibit P3 and he was emphatic that it was not the approval limit he received from the Minister of Transport and that he and the other defendants never got the said document whilst in office and never acknowledged receiving it. When PW4 brought a copy of the said circular to their attention, they felt it was irregular not having been forwarded under the hands of the Minister of Transport to the Managing Director and that it was administrative since it was signed by the Finance Minister.

When referred to the portion of exhibit D2, the board minutes where exhibit P3 was discussed, he stated that the said portion of the minutes was incorrect and gave his own version of what transpired at the said meeting.

He stated that no contract was awarded at the meeting where exhibit P3 was circulated and discussed and no response was received to their letter to the Minister of Transport on the said exhibit P3 asking for clarifications as implementation would have crippled the NPA considering its complex nature and the highly intensive expenditure profile.

He explained steps taken by the board to secure mobilization fees approved on contracts and denied ever receiving exhibit P2. He also denied any conspiracy to disobey lawful instructions as alleged.

Under cross-examination for the 2nd defendant he explained the complex and international implications of the operations of the NPA and the expected role of the board under the NPA Act.

60 He gave the names of other members of the board who were left out of the charge by the prosecution including PW4 who according to him never objected to any of their decisions.

He was shown exhibit P3 and he pointed out that it has the stamp of the Federal Ministry of Water Resources insisting that the 2nd defendant never received any such document to his knowledge. He further stated that no other contract was approved after exhibit P3 was received and discussed and that exhibit D4 which they relied on came from the Minister of Transport and preceded the appointment of all the defendants to the NPA board and also conformed with exhibit D6 the brief from the legal adviser of the board and exhibit D5 which was still in use in NPA as at 2008.

He stated that the board did not confer a unilateral approval limit on itself and that the reasons adduced for not complying with exhibit P3 were genuine.

He denied all the counts and insisted that the board in which all the defendants served never inflated nor split any contract as alleged and made copious references to the minutes.

Further cross-examined for the 3rd defendant he explained the processes a contract would have passed through from the user department before getting to the board for approval asserting that the board did not appraise prices and never engaged in contract splitting or inflation.

Under cross-examination for the 4th defendant, he explained the economic implications of compliance with exhibit P3 and stated that clarification sought from the Minister of Transport on the said circular was never received in any form.

Cross-examined for the 5th defendant, he stated that he was never aware of the requirement for due process teams to be in place and only became aware in the course of the testimony of PW6 and insisted that NPA had a price intelligence unit in every department.

And when cross-examined for the 6th defendant, he once again outlined the complex and financially intensive nature of NPA activities and once again

61 denied any incidence of contract splitting and further explained why exhibit P3 would not apply to the NPA.

Under final cross-examination from the lead prosecutor, Mr. Keyamo, he stated that apart from the documents given at inauguration by the legal adviser of NPA he never sought nor obtained any additional document on the powers and functions of the board.

He was shown exhibits D2 and D3 he admitted that unless corrected at any subsequent meeting they represented what transpired at the meetings. When his attention was drawn to the aspect of the minutes relating to the consideration of exhibit P3 he disputed the minutes as recorded but was unable to show where objection was taken before the said minutes were adopted at a subsequent meeting as contained in exhibit D3. He explained the rationale for the steps taken by the board and insisted that they never disobeyed but only sought clarification.

He agreed that exhibit P3 did not contradict the NPA Act but only felt it would run the NPA aground if implemented. He insisted that no letter from the Minister of Transport accompanied the copy of exhibit P3 brought to the meeting by PW4 and that the minutes were incorrect in that regard.

He confirmed that the clarification or waiver sought from the Minister of Transport was never received but they continued to subsequently award contracts using the previous approval guideline since no directive was received otherwise and to protect the best interest of the nation.

He stated that he would not know whether proposals brought for approval by management were either inflated or split although the board thoroughly scrutinized the proposals even if the minutes did not so reflect as normally minutes only carry essential details although he admitted not objecting to any of the proposals since he felt the proposals had been professionally treated prior to presentation before the board.

He further agreed with the learned lead prosecutor that the board had a duty to be satisfied with management’s proposals before granting approval.

He denied being aware of the legal stipulations for setting up of due process teams with him as the head in NPA, insisting that NPA had adequate price intelligence units and auditing processes.

62 He asserted that he never had any discussion with appraisal officers in NPA and never invited any one of them to appear before the board to defend any proposal as their operation fell within the purview of management which the board would not bypass.

He agreed with the learned lead prosecutor that he was answerable to the president as instructions from the Minister of Transport invariably amounts to the President’s instructions and that although they did not doubt the authenticity of PW4’s instruction when he brought up exhibit P3, they however felt it contained a lapse which needed clarification.

He denied that the board unilaterally raised its approval levels as under the NPA Act it must defer to the Minister of Transport on financial issues.

He insisted that he and the other defendants had no responsibilities as regards the splitting or inflation of contracts since it never took place at their board meetings although he agreed that if splitting was obvious on the face of a contract, he had a duty to stop it.

He was shown from exhibit D1 that there were other alleged violations of exhibit P3 as regards mobilization payment but he denied ever disobeying the said circular. He further denied approving any split or inflated contracts.

When re-examined by his lead counsel he said exhibit P3 did not reflect all the approval levels in NPA and made inadequate provisions thereby necessitating clarifications.

His evidence was adopted by each of the other defendants and the case proceeded to the final addresses of counsel.

As provided by Section 273 (2) of the Criminal Justice Administration Law of Lagos State, 2007 all the counsel reduced their final addresses into writing and later adopted and argued them in open court beginning with Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) the learned lead Counsel for the 1st defendant.

In adopting his written address which incidentally was co-signed by all the other defence counsel, the learned senior counsel in addition canvassed a new line of argument orally.

63 He submitted that from the evidence adduced, the defendants were not charged in their personal capacities but as Chairman and members of the board of the NPA and that the board of the NPA is not a public officer although the defendants may be public officers in their personal capacities. According to him, failure to show that the board of the NPA is a public officer is therefore fatal to the prosecution’s case.

He further argued that since the defendants acted jointly as a board they must be so treated and if treated as a board they are agents for their corporation and cannot be held culpable personally. He referred to Section 1 of the NPA Act and Section 65 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act.

He also submitted that since members of the board of NPA are statutorily stipulated, by leaving out certain members of the said board who participated in the alleged infractions, the prosecution had committed a fatal error as thereby the proper defendant was not fully constituted before the Court.

He submitted further that exhibit P1 cannot be validly used as proof in this case in the absence of the evidence relied on to arrive at the conclusions therein as facts leading to conclusions must be before the Court.

In the substantive written address he summarized the evidence adduced by both sides and submitted four issues for determination as follows:

(a) Whether the prosecution proved the allegations of inflation of contracts contained in Counts 1-7 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (b)Whether the prosecution proved the allegations of abuse of office by splitting of contracts contained in Counts 58-68 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Whether the prosecution proved the allegations of disobedience of lawful orders contained in Counts 9-57 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (d)Whether the prosecution proved the allegation of conspiracy to disobey lawful orders contained in Count 8 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguing the first issue he submitted that onus of proof in the case is on the prosecution who must prove every ingredient of each offence alleged and

64 that standard is proof beyond reasonable doubts. He referred to ADISA VS STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 168) 490 at 504, BAKARE VS STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 52) 579 and ARAN VS STATE (2001) 5 NWLR (PT 706) 256 at 269.

He then proceeded to set out the ingredients of the offence created in Section 22 (3) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 contained in counts 1-7 as being that the prosecution must prove that the defendants are public officers, that they acted in the course of their official duties, that there was a market price or professional standard prevailing at the time the offences were allegedly committed and that the defendants inflated the price of goods and services above the said prevailing market price or professional standard.

He examined the definition of public officers as contained in the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act and conceded that the prosecution appeared to have established that defendants were public officers and further conceded that they acted in the course of their official duties.

He however submitted that the prevailing prices adduced by the prosecution witnesses were not shown to have been available to the defendants at the material time they awarded the contracts in question and that accepting the later computation of the market prices of the prosecution witnesses would amount to retroactive application of the provisions of the law as all the ingredients of the alleged offence were not present at the time the alleged offence was committed. He referred to UDOH VS OTHORPAEDIC HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD & ORS (1993) 7 NWLR (PT 304) 139 at 149.

He submitted further that from the minutes of the board meetings before the Court, the only prevailing price available to the defendants at the time of award of the said contracts was the one provided by the management of the NPA which has the duty to so advise and that the defendants were not aware at that time of the prevailing prices now canvassed by the prosecution witnesses.

He finally submitted on this issue that nothing was shown in the minutes indicating an increase in the prices recommended by management and that even if the recommended prices were shown to have been inflated the inflation was not by the defendants who never went beyond any appraised

65 prices recommended to them and always awarded below contractors’ quotations.

He urged the Court to also consider the disparities in the dates on these counts and hold that they were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Moving to his second issue the learned Senior Advocate outlined the relevant provisions of the enabling law for Counts 58 to 68 and submitted that the essential ingredients to be proved by the prosecution are that the defendants were employed in the public service, that they did or directed an arbitrary act to be done and that what they did or directed to be done amounted to an abuse of the authority of the defendants’ office.

He examined the definition of public officers in the Criminal Code and conceded that it embraced the defendants he then went ahead to consider the allegation of splitting of contracts and submitted that nothing was shown from the minutes of the board meetings indicating that the defendants at any point in time split one contract into two or several parts.

He submitted that if indeed any splitting took place, it was before the said contracts were presented before the defendants and extended his argument further by stating that even if there was splitting of contracts by the defendants it would not amount to an arbitrary act as envisaged in the Section of the law under which the defendants were charged. He referred to OJUADE VS IGP (1964) ANLR 495 at 496.

He also submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged acts of the defendants were prejudicial to the rights of the Minister of Transport or the Federal Executive Council. He referred to an Indian High Court decision THE KING VS DARBARILAL SHAW ALL INDIA REPORT (1949) Vol. 36 (Calcutta) 677.

He urged the Court to note that no evidence of fraud alleged in the Counts was adduced and that there was a discrepancy in the dates shown on Count 58 and in totality hold that the prosecution has failed to prove these counts beyond reasonable doubt as well.

Arguing his third issue which relates to Counts 9-57 contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code he once again outlined the relevant Section and submitted that the ingredients to be proved are that the defendants disobeyed

66 a lawful order, that the lawful order was issued by a person authorized by any Order, Act, Law or Statute subject to the valid defence that the defendants have lawful excuse to disobey the lawful orders the onus of proof of which lies on them and that there is an Order, Act, Law or Statute which expressly provides a mode of proceeding against the defendants for disobeying the order and such proceeding is exclusive of all other punishment.

He urged the Court to adequately interpret the relevant Section and submitted that the prosecution failed to show the existence of any Law under which the author of exhibit P3 acted and that the order pursuant to which the defendants could be held liable for disobeying must have emanated from some legislative quarters or contain such flavor which was not shown in this case. He referred to PDP VS INEC (2001) 1 WRW 1 at 34.

He further submitted that exhibit P3 was not shown to have emanated from a person so authorized as the Federal Government of Nigeria or the Federal Ministry of Finance is not a person envisaged within the meaning of the said Section 203 of the Criminal Code. He referred to PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY VS LONDON AND PROVINCIAL SUPPLY ASSOCIATION (1879-80) AC 857 and THE KING VS DARBARILAL SHAW (supra) at 679.

He submitted that the defendants can only be held liable for disobeying an order they were aware of and that the evidence of PW4 and the 1st defendant show that the said circular exhibit P3 was not formally served on the defendants using the proper line of Communication.

He then submitted that even if the defendants were shown to have disobeyed they had shown lawful excuse as envisaged by Section 203 of the Criminal Code. On what constitutes lawful excuse he referred to WONG POOH YIN VS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (1955) AC 91 and CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL VS RUST (1972) 3 AER 232 at 237.

He urged the Court to consider the entire circumstances relating to the said circular exhibit P3 which he listed and hold that there was sufficient lawful excuse to disobey exhibit P3.

He submitted that the prosecution failed to show the mode of proceeding against the defendants for disobeying exhibit P3 thereby depriving the

67 defendants of a possible defence and that in the event the defendants are even found guilty, prison terms are inappropriate for that class of offence.

Specifically on the issue of mobilization fees, he submitted that the award in Counts 49-51preceded the notification of exhibit P3 and on Counts 52 – 57 he submitted in addition that the operation of exhibit P3 would have ground the Ports, that the prosecution failed to show that mobilization was actually paid out as alleged and that there existed lawful grounds for disobedience.

In conclusion on this issue he urged the Court to reject the prosecution’s case on the Counts showing dates preceding the notification of exhibit P3, to also similarly reject the Counts with irregular dates and in totality uphold the submissions of the defence.

Moving to his final issue which deals with Conspiracy under Section 517 alleged in Count 8, Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) once more referred to the Section involved and outlined the legal ingredients thereof. He referred to BALOGUN VS A.G. OGUN STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (PT 733) 331 at 346-347, OLADEJO VS STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT 348) 101 at 127 and AMADI VS STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 646.

He adopted his earlier arguments on the main Counts and submitted that the Count of conspiracy cannot be sustained as well. He urged the Court to further hold that the Count is bad as all the ingredients of the offence were not contained therein and the alleged conspiracy was said to have taken place prior to the notification of exhibit P3. He referred to HAVANA & ORS VS STATE (1972) 7 NSCC 550 at 559.

He urged the Court to hold that the prosecution failed in all the counts and accordingly discharge and acquit the defendants on all counts.

The address was adopted by each of the other defence Counsel with each one of them emphasizing various aspects thereof.

For the prosecution, Mr Keyamo the lead Counsel equally adopted his earlier filed and served written address. Before going into the details however, he responded to the new issues raised orally by the defence.

68 He submitted that having admitted in their joint written address that the defendants are public officers, the defence counsel were estopped from arguing otherwise.

He stated that the definition of public officers contained in Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act must apply and that the said Section includes natural persons employed as directors on the boards of public corporations who could be charged for alleged criminal infractions apart from the corporate bodies they worked for.

He submitted that the defendants are being prosecuted for alleged criminal infractions committed while in office and that where there are multiple offenders, there is a prosecutorial discretion as to who to prosecute.

He further submitted that adopting the arguments urged by the defence counsel on this issue will create an absurdity.

He then proceeded to the arguments in his written address and adopted the issues for determination formulated by the defence counsel.

Arguing the first issue which relates to Counts 1-7, he identified the basic ingredients of the alleged offence as being that the defendant must be a public officer, that the act complained of must have been done in the course of his official duties and that he must have inflated the price of any goods or services above the prevailing market price or professional standards.

He submitted that the defendants have admitted the first two ingredients leaving out the third and outlined the various pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in proof of these counts which according to the learned counsel showed the prevailing prices from 2001 to 2003 and which evidence was not rebutted by the defence and should be accepted by the Court.

He further submitted that the defendant cannot be absolved from blame simply by asserting that the alleged inflation did not take place before them but at an earlier stage before presentation to them as they must be made to take responsibility as the approving authority which is the target of the law in issue. He referred to Section 22 (3) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Code.

69 He further submitted that circumstantial evidence would suffice to proof that the defendants were aware of the prevailing market price at the time and referred to MOHAMMED VS STATE (2007) 13 NWLR (PT 1050) 186 and AIGBADION VS STATE (2000) 7 NWLR (PT 666) 686 at 705.

He urged the Court to consider Section 5 (1) of the First Schedule to the Ports Act and hold that the defendants had powers to confirm the prevailing prices at every point in time but failed to use it as shown from their minutes exhibits D1, D2 and D3 which the Court must take as correct and which the Court will not allow oral evidence to contradict. He referred to SOKWO VS KPONGBO (2003) 2 NWLR (PT 803) 111 at 154.

He submitted that the prices in evidence by the prosecution witnesses were the prevailing prices in 2001 to 2003, that exhibits D2 and D3 did not on the face thereof show inflation of prices and that Counts 2-7 contained the days of the final award of the contracts consequent on the earlier approval of the defendants. He referred to ABOGEDE VS STATE (1996) NWLR (PT 448) 270. He urged the Court to convict the defendants as charged on Counts 1- 7.

He then moved on to the second issue relating to alleged splitting of contracts contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code contained in Counts 58 – 68.

He identified the ingredients of the alleged offence as being that the person must be employed in the public service, he must have done or directed an arbitrary act to be done, he must have abused his authority by so doing or directing to be so done and the arbitrary act must be prejudicial to the rights of another.

The first ingredient not being in contention, he referred to the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 and exhibits P1, P1A, D1, D2, D3, P4 and P5 to show the split contracts which constitute arbitrary acts done in abuse of office and prejudicial to the rights of others.

He submitted that split contracts are obvious on the face thereof and the approving authority cannot be absolved from responsibility in respect thereto.

70 He offered a definition of ‘arbitrary acts’ and submitted that prejudice occurs the moment a superior authority is denied the opportunity to exercise his powers.

He further submitted that splitting here is not just from a resolution of the board to do so but from the act of approving split contracts. He urged the Court to discountenance the cases of OJUADE VS IGP (supra) and KING VS DARBARILAL SHAW (supra) relied on by the defence as being inapplicable.

On count 58 said to contain an irregular date he once again submitted that the Count reflects the date of award which is a consequence of the defendants’ approval.

He urged the Court to convict the defendants as charged on these counts as well.

He then moved to the third issue which involves allegations of disobedience of lawful orders contrary to Section 203 of the Criminal Code contained in Counts 9-57.

He identified the ingredients here as the existence of a lawful order issued by any person authorized by any Order, Act, Law or Statute, that the defendant must have disobeyed the said order and that the defendant has no excuse permitted by law to so disobey the order and if he pleads any excuse then he must prove it.

On the first ingredient, he submitted that exhibit P3 is the order involved which emanated from a Minister and indirectly from the President as admitted by the 1st defendant and which the NPA board was bound to comply with. He referred to Section 124 of the Nigerian Ports Authority Act.

He submitted further that pursuant to Section 148 of the Constitution, the President through the Federal Executive Council is a person authorized by law to issue exhibit P3 which applies to the NPA as a Federal Government Agency and that once the issuing authority is lawful the mode of conveying it is irrelevant and compliance is mandatory. He then submitted that exhibit P3 satisfies all the requirements of Section 203 of the Criminal Code He referred to ABUBAKAR VS B.O. & A.P LTD (2007) 18 NWLR (PT 1066) 319 at 384.

71 He submitted that the facts adduced and not disputed by the defence shows that the defendants willfully disobeyed the order in question and that the excuses given by the defendants are not justified or permitted by law. He referred to Section 18 (1) of the Interpretation Act, Sections 22-36 of the Criminal Code, Section 150 (1) of the Evidence Act and AMACO VS STATE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT 399) 11 at 32.

He made copious references to exhibit D2 and D3 and submitted that it was too late in the day for the defendants to deny receipt of exhibit P3 or even deny the correctness of the minutes exhibit D2 and urged the Court to hold that the defendants were shopping for excuses to justify their disobedience to exhibit P3.

He submitted that since exhibit P3 did not stipulate punishment, Section 203 of the Criminal Code was not excluded and that having failed to prove the existence of a lawful excuse the Court should find the defendants guilty as charged. He referred to Section 143 of the EVIDENCE ACT.

Responding to certain points raised by the defence on this issue, Mr. Keyamo submitted that it was too late in the day to raise any formal defect in the charge and that defendants were never misled especially when the defect complained of was not an essential component for a valid charge. He referred to Section 74 of the EVIDENCE ACT, FRN VS ADEWUNMI (2007) 10 NWLR (PT 1042) 399 at 411, SHEKETE VS NAF (2007) 14 NWLR (PT 1053) 159 at 169, NDUKWE VS LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (PT 1026) 1 at 12 and MUSA VS COP (2004) 9 NWLR (PT 879) 483 at 497.

He submitted further that Section 203 of the Criminal Code envisages numerous kinds of lawful orders and that ‘person’ as referred to therein includes offices and institutions not just natural persons and that the cases of PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY VS LONDON AND PROVINCIAL SUPPLY ASSOCIATION (supra) and THE KING VS DARBARILAL SHAW (supra) referred to by the defence are inapplicable.

He also submitted that having admitted receiving copies of exhibit P3, the issue of the stamp on the copy tendered in Court would be of no moment. He referred to MENAKAIYA VS MENAKAIYA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT 472) 256.

72 He submitted further that failure to adhere to the portion of exhibit P3 relating to payment of mobilization fees confirmed the willfulness of the defendant in disobeying the said order as compliance therewith was never shown to be detrimental in any way.

He urged the Court to reject the excuses of the defendants and convict the defendants as charged in respect of these Counts.

Moving to the fourth and final issue relating to Conspiracy pursuant to Section 517 of the Criminal Code, the learned lead prosecutor once again outlined the ingredients and referred to the aspect of exhibit D2 relating to the discussion of exhibit P3 and submitted that the ingredients thereof had been fully proved. He urged the Court to convict the defendants as charged and referred to OYAKHIRE VS STATE (2005) 15 NWLR (PT 947) 159 at 178.

He submitted that the defendants understood the count and were not misled and that the irregularity in the date is of no consequence since the words ‘on or about’ were used to qualify the dates.

He urged the Court to hold that the prosecution has proved all the Counts beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convict the defendants as charged on all the Counts.

The defence Counsel filed a joint reply on points of law which was jointly adopted with the lead senior counsel for the 1st defendant, Mr Ayanlaja (SAN) leading the arguments.

On his first issue, he submitted that reports of committees set up by the Federal Government are of no probative value unless accepted by the government through a white paper. He referred to ALHAJI ABDULAHI VS HASHIDU (1999) 4 NWLR (PT 600) 638 at 639, COOKEY VS JUMBO (2005) 5 SC (PT 11) 102 at 118 and OMEGA VS OBC (2005) 21 SCNQR 771 at 800.

He further submitted that the law only punishes the offender and would not admit of vicarious punishment as advocated by the prosecution in respect of approval of contracts inflated and split by some other persons other than defendants. He referred to MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED VS UMENWEKE (2002) 9 NWLR (PT 773) 543 at 561, OBADE VS THE

73 STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (PT 198) 438 at 455 and ACB VS OKONKWO (1997) 1 NWLR (PT 480) 194 at 207-208.

On the second issue he reiterated that the defendants cannot be vicariously punished and submitted that the learned prosecutor cannot replace evidence adduced with his submission. He referred to IBIKUNLE VS STATE (2007) 2 NWLR (PT 1019) 546 and OLANIYAN VS ADENIYI (2007) 3 NWLR (PT 1020) 1.

He repeated his earlier arguments and submitted that ABOGEDE VS STATE (supra) referred to by the learned prosecutor was inapplicable.

Moving to the third issue he submitted that disobedience to an administrative proceeding cannot lead to criminal sanctions and that the order in question did not emanate from a body known to law and cannot be binding on the NPA. He referred to Section 124 of the NPA Act, A.G FEDERATION VS ANPP (2004) 1 MJSC 1 at 16, FAWEHINMI VS NBA (No 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (PT 105) 58 and MCFOY VS UAC (1962) AC 152.

He further submitted that failure to tender the letter presented to the defendants in respect of exhibit P3 creates a lacunae which in the circumstances leaves the Court to speculate about its existence, an exercise the Court must never embark upon. He referred to UBN VS AYODARE & SONS NIG. LTD (2007) 13 NWLR (PT 1052) 567 and NASCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD VS A.N. AMACO TRANSPORT (2002) FWLR (PT 135) 652 at 677.

He urged the Court to reject the contention of the prosecution and hold that the defence made no admission and had lawful excuses not to have complied with exhibit P3.

On the fourth issue he submitted that once the prosecution failed on the third issue, they must fail on this issue as well and that the irregular date would lead to miscarriage of justice. He referred to ALK VS R (1963) AC 160.

He urged the Court to discharge and acquit the defendants on all the Counts.

I have duly considered the cases presented for the parties and the submissions of counsel.

74 I shall also adopt the issues for determination formulated by Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) learned lead defence counsel and adopted by Mr. Keyamo the learned lead prosecutor.

Onus of proof is on the prosecution in line with section 36 (5) of the Constitution and Section 138 of the Evidence Act, and the standard of proof required to justify a conviction is one beyond reasonable doubt. This level of proof is attained when every ingredient, which constitutes the alleged offence, has been proved. See AYUB-KHAN VS STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 172) 127,ADIGUN VS A.G. OYO STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 53) 678 and EDE VS FRN (2001) 1 NWLR (PT 695) 502 at 515.

I must however begin by considering certain points raised orally in the course of the adoption of the final addresses which are fundamental in nature and which if resolved in favor of the defence may substantially determine the entire case.

It may be noteworthy to point out that raising some of these issues orally outside the written addresses already filed and exchanged as was done by the learned lead defence counsel is irregular as it could prejudice the other party who had no notice and was in court only to expound on the already filed written addresses.

However, since the prosecution had responded and also because the Court must accommodate every defence put forward by the defendant to a criminal charge, the said points would be considered on their merits.

The first point in this regard is the submission that the defendants were not charged in their personal capacities but as members of the board of the NPA and that unless shown that the board of the NPA is a public officer, they should be acquitted.

To this the learned lead prosecutor responded that the defendants were not charged as a board but as persons who were members of the board of directors of the NPA and that as such they were properly before the Court as former public officers.

Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act provides a definition of public officers as follows:

75 “Public officer means a person employed or engaged in any capacity in the public service of the Federation, State or Local Government, public corporation or private company wholly or jointly floated by any government or its agency, including the subsidiary of any such company whether located within or outside Nigeria and includes judicial officers serving in magistrate’s area or customary courts or tribunals.”

Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the operative words in it should be given their simple, ordinary, grammatical meaning. See OMOYENI VS GOV. EDO STATE (2004) 5 NWLR (PT 865) 175 and ARAKA VS EGBUE (2003) 17 NWLR (PT 848) 1.

The facts indisputably before the Court are that the defendants are natural persons who were appointed to serve as directors on the board of the NPA a public corporation owned solely by the Federal Government of Nigeria and established under an Act of the National Assembly, the Nigerian Ports Authority Act 38 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the NPA Act).

It is an evident fact upon which the Court can take judicial notice that only natural persons are appointed to hold public offices and not corporate or incorporate bodies.

Furthermore, the board of a corporation is an organ of that organization and does not possess a corporate legal existence separate from that of the corporate body it belongs to. It cannot as such possess legal identity as to sue or be sued independently. At common law for purposes of criminal liability, the corporate veil would give way for the individuals acting for a corporate entity to be personally liable for their activities. See TESCO SUPERMARKETS LTD VS NATRASS (1972) A.C 153 and R VS ICR HAULAGE LTD (1944) All ER 691.

In the circumstances I hold that the defendants as persons who served as directors of a public corporation, the NPA are properly before the Court in that capacity and are consequently public officers within the contemplation of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act.

The second point raised in this regard which is an extension of the first one is that since the defendants are before the Court as the board of the NPA which has a statutory composition, by leaving a few of them out the defendants are thereby not fully before the Court.

76 To this the learned prosecutor responded that the defendants are before the Court as individuals who served as members of the board of the NPA from 2001 to 2003 and that the prosecution has a discretion on who to proceed against.

As earlier held, the defendants are before the Court as persons who served on the board of NPA from 2001 to 2003. The board of the NPA is inanimate and only individuals who serve as directors therein are tangible. From the various extra judicial statements of the defendants they were not appointed to the NPA board at the same time and what could only be said to be uniform to them all is that they participated at the board meetings where the alleged offences being tried herein were supposedly committed. The defendants would not and cannot thereby become an indivisible entity.

The decision as to who is to be proceeded against is a prosecutorial discretion which the Court cannot interfere with as it is derived from the Constitutional powers of the Attorneys General in this case the Attorney General of the Federation under Section 174 (1) of the Constitution. The said section of the Constitution provides as follows:

“174 (1) The Attorney –General of the Federation shall have power –

(a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria, other than a court-martial, in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly; (b)to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and (c) to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person.

(2) The powers conferred upon the Attorney-General of the Federation under subsection (1) of this section may be exercised by him in person or through officers of his department.”

It is trite that at common law the Attorney- General is a law to himself and subject to direction and control of no one in the exercise of his powers. See STATE VS ILORI & ORS (1983) 1 SCNLR 94 and

77 A.G. KADUNA VS HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 8) 483 at 503.

The Supreme Court also stated on another occasion that: “The Attorney-General of the Federation derives his powers under section 174 of the Constitution as an agency of the Federal Government. The law is well-established that the court cannot control the manner he exercises his powers so conferred.” See A.G. ONDO STATE VS A.G. FEDERATION (2002) 9 NWLR (PT 772) 222 at 419.

Having thus established that the Attorney General has unfettered discretion in the conduct of criminal prosecutions within his purview, the next question to be answered is whether by the exercise of this prosecutorial discretion in this instance to leave out some of the alleged participis criminis in this case, the entire charge had been fatally flawed because the composition of the NPA board is statutorily stipulated.

A perusal of the provisions of the NPA Act will indicate the composition of the board described as governing board in Section 2 thereof while Section 3 of the first schedule which relates specifically to the Board provides that quorum shall be the Chairman or one of the other members presiding and four other members.

The implication of this is that even if the arguments of the eminent learned defence counsel is to be bought, the Board in accordance with the NPA Act is constituted with the presence of five members.

However having held earlier that the defendants are charged for personal roles allegedly played by them while serving on the said NPA board, and having further held that there is a prosecutorial discretion as to who to prosecute, the issue of the defendants being before the Court as an indivisible board does not arise.

In the entire circumstances therefore I cannot agree with the learned defence counsel on this point as well.

The next point of a preliminary nature also linked to the first two is that the defendants acted as agents of a corporate body, the NPA and as such cannot be held personally liable.

78 Responding to this the learned prosecutor submitted that the defendants were liable to be prosecuted for alleged criminal infractions committed while in office.

The subject of criminal liability for corporate conduct is not as closed as the learned defence counsel seem to be making it. It was considered by this court in FRN VS KINGSLEY IKPE (2005) 2 QCCR 155 at 192-193.

The corporate shield for personal criminal liability is no longer impregnable. Apart from the fact that the individual director could be held personally liable for criminal infractions personally committed by him in office, where the conduct was attributed to the company he acted for, the corporate veil could be lifted and where he is identified as the directing mind of the corporate entity, he could face penal sanctions.

Whereas the penalty on conviction for corporate bodies used to be simply fines, there is a shift especially concerning serious offences that go beyond regulatory matters, for directing minds of the corporate entity to be identified and made to serve prison terms while the company as an entity is fined. See TESCO SUPERMARKETS LTD VS NATRASS (supra) and R VS ICR HAULAGE LTD (supra). See also CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER- REFORMING THE LAW published in THE WHISTLES (Bulletin of Freedom to Care, ISSN 0969-2118) No 10 April 1996 particularly the papers of J Barrie Berkley, Vice- Chair of Disaster Action and Prof. Celia Wells, Professor of Law at Cardiff Law School, University of Wales.

Taking it further, under the doctrine of ‘the responsible corporate officer,’ officers of a company would be liable for criminal violations committed by their subordinates if their position in the company gives them the responsibility and authority to prevent or correct such a violation and they failed to do so. See UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277 (1943) and UNITED STATES V. PARK, 421 U.S. 658 (1975). See also ‘PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR CORPORATE FAULT’ Report of the Corporations and Market Advisory Committee of the Australian Government, 2006.

I therefore hold that the defendants could be competently tried and if found guilty convicted for any alleged criminal infraction said to have been committed by them while serving as directors of the NPA.

79 The remaining point is as regards the evidential value of exhibit P1, the report of the Ribadu Committee. The said document contains the findings of a Committee said to have been set up by the Federal Government and which formed part of the materials relied on by the investigators of this case. That in my view is its limited relevance for the purposes of this trial. It is not the product of a trial and its conclusions cannot be adopted by this Court.

Trials have been described as the judicial examination and determination of issues between the parties in accordance with the law of the land or of a cause, either civil or criminal between the parties whether of law or fact before a court that has proper jurisdiction. See KAJUBO VS. STATE (1988) NWLR (PT. 73) 712

Conclusions reached by a Committee no matter the eminence of the composition cannot and should not be substituted for direct findings of a trial Court properly seised of a case. In this regard, the findings and conclusions contained in the document exhibit P1 will not be substituted for the direct findings to be made in this case based on evidence properly adduced and admitted before the Court.

I shall now proceed to the substance of the various Counts starting with those in the first issue relating to allegations of inflation of contracts contrary to Section 22 (3) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act contained in Counts 1-7.

The said section 22 (3) provides as follows: “Any public officer who in the course of his official duties, inflates the price of any goods or services above the prevailing market price or professional standards, is guilty of an offence under this Act and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of seven (7) years and a fine of one million naira.”

The ingredients to be established by the prosecution in this regard were correctly identified by counsel on both sides.The prosecution must show that the defendants were public officers; that they acted in the course of their official duties, and that while so acting officially, inflated the price of any goods or services above the prevailing market price or professional standard.

The case of the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of their ten witnesses and the various exhibits before the Court. All the prosecution

80 witnesses are government officials who came into contact with the facts of the case in the course of the performance of their official duties and this includes PW4 who may be classified an accomplice from the nature of his role. None of them however had been alleged or shown to have any personal or pecuniary interest to serve. Their credibility is therefore not in issue.

The defendants anchored their fate on the oral testimony of the 1st defendant and the documents they equally placed before the Court as exhibits. The 1st defendant played a direct role in the facts leading to the case and chaired the various meetings of the board of directors of the NPA where the alleged infractions forming the basis of the entire case supposedly took place while all the remaining defendants participated as members of the board of directors.

Having earlier resolved that the defendants were public officers, it goes without saying from the evidence and submissions of both counsel that the defendants acted in the course of their official duties. What appears to be in contention is whether there was inflation of contracts and if so whether the defendants could be held liable for it.

By the ordinary wordings of the Act, inflation of goods or services can only be established against the benchmark of a prevailing market price or professional standard.

All the items contained in each of Counts 1 to 7 in issue here, involved procurements, none is mere consultancy service as to require proof of professional standards. This implies that what must be established are the prevailing market prices in respect of each of the contract items in the Counts which cannot be done by mere ipse dixit, it is documentary.

Each of the items involved in the said counts were procured including that of Count 1 which involves repair work as such there must be manufacturers or manufacturers representatives. None of the documents tendered before the Court by the prosecution professes to be a price list from any manufacturer. None of the 10 prosecution witnesses including PW6 and PW10 who specifically handled prices told the Court what they did with specific reference to each of these Counts.

81 Where a visit was indeed made as stated by these witnesses, then the office visited must have a name and must be related to the specific item and Count involved. Contrary to the submissions of the learned lead prosecutor, documents such as exhibits P1, P1A, P4 and P5 are unhelpful to the Court in this regard as they contain conclusions and summaries of exercises conducted outside the face of the Court. For the conclusions therein to be accepted, the evidential basis thereof must also be placed before the Court.

There ought to be ample documentary evidence and validation for such documents. Such that witnesses from the manufacturers or manufacturers’ representatives would be presented in court or in the alternative authenticated documents from such sources detailing the applicable prices of the items involved would be tendered.

Where repair works were made as in Count 1, evidence from the Company which carried out the repairs showing that what they did could have been done for much less or evidence that similar repairs were done by them for much less could have been gathered.

The Court cannot and will not in the absence of evidence before it adopt the conclusions reached on a matter where the Court must come make up its own mind. Presenting the authors of the exhibits in question for cross- examination is not a substitute for hard independent evidence as the issue here goes beyond their oral assertions as earlier stated.

PW6 and PW10 both admitted the existence of documents they worked with relating to the prices of these contracts, which documents were kept away from the Court.

It is amazing that while the learned prosecutor correctly identified the necessary legal ingredients of the offence created herein, he failed to be guided by them while leading evidence. Repeatedly under cross-examination the witnesses admitted to the existence of the documents involved yet the said documents were kept away from the Court by the prosecution.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, the documents involved are not such as are in the range of notoriety which could make the Court take judicial notice of them. By keeping them away from the Court, the prosecution has left the

82 issue to conjectures. The inadequacy created is palpable and cannot be ignored. The lapse here must enure to the defendants.

In the circumstances I must come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the prevailing prices for the contracts said to have been inflated in Counts 1 to 7 thereby making it impossible for the Court to assess the basis for a conclusion that the contracts contained therein were indeed inflated as alleged. The said counts must therefore fail against the defendants.

The second issue formulated by the parties is as regards whether the prosecution proved the allegations of abuse of office by splitting of contracts contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code contained in Counts 58-68 of the amended information against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

The said section 104 provides as follows: “Any person who, being employed in the public service, does or directs to be done, in abuse of the authority of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

If the act is done or directed to be done for purposes of gain he is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

The offender cannot be arrested without warrant. A prosecution for any offence under this or any of the last three preceding sections shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of a law officer.”

The legal ingredients of the offence created herein have also been correctly identified by the counsel on two sides. To succeed, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubts that the defendants were employed in the public service, that they did or directed an arbitrary act to be done in abuse of the authority of their offices and that the arbitrary act was prejudicial to the rights of some other person.

A guide was provided in Section 1 of the Criminal Code (the interpretation Section) as to who a person employed in the public service is.

It provides as follows:

83 “ ‘Person employed in the public service’ means any person holding any of the following offices, or performing the duties thereof, whether as deputy or otherwise-

(1) any civil office, the power of appointing a person to which or removing a person from which is vested in the Civil Service Commission, or any Board; or (2) any office to which a person is appointed by or under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended or any enactment; or (3) any civil office, the power of appointing to which or of removing from which is vested in any person or persons holding an office of any kind included in either of the two last preceding subheads of this section; or (4) any office of arbitrator or umpire in any proceeding or matter submitted to arbitration by order or with the sanction of any court, or in pursuance of any enactment; or (5) a member of a commission of inquiry appointed under any Act or Law; and the said term further includes- (1) any justice of the peace; (2) any person employed to execute any process of a court; (3) all persons belonging to the military or police forces of Nigeria; (4) all persons in the employ of any Government department; (5) a person acting as a minister of religion of whatsoever denomination in so far as he performs functions in respect of the notification of intended marriage, or in respect of the solemnization of marriage or in respect of the making and keeping of any register or certificate of marriage, birth, baptism, death or burial, but not in any other respect; (6) a person employed by a head chief in connection with any powers or duties exercised or performed by such chief under any Act or Law or with the consent of the President or a Governor; (7) a person in the employ of a local authority; (8) a person in the employ of a Local Government Council in connection with any powers or duties exercised or performed by such Local Government Council and in respect of the duties for which the employment actually exists;”

It is not in contest that the defendants were in accordance with Section 2 of the NPA Act appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to serve as Chairman and directors on the board of the NPA and that they could be removed from that office by the President pursuant to Section 4 of

84 the said Act. They thereby come within sub (3) in the above definition of persons employed in the public service.

From the particulars of the various Counts involved here, Counts 58 to 68, the alleged acts said to have constituted the arbitrary acts resulting in abuse of office are contract splitting.

From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the submissions of the learned prosecutor, the sum total of the case of the prosecution is that although no resolution to split any contract was passed by the board of the NPA constituted by the defendants, they did approve split contracts. That split contracts are easily identifiable as could be gleaned on perusal of exhibits D2 and D3, the minutes of the meetings of the Board of directors of the NPA attended by the defendants and that by approving same, the defendants committed the alleged offence.

The prosecution further posited that contract splitting is an arbitrary act constituting abuse of office in respect of which prejudice is automatic once a superior authority is deprived the opportunity of exercising its legitimate function in relation to the contract involved.

On the other hand, the defendants contended that they did not approve any split contract, that if at all any contract approved by them was split, the splitting was not by the defendants and that it would amount to vicarious punishment to hold the defendants liable for offences committed by others.

It was further contended for the defence that contract splitting is not an arbitrary act that would constitute abuse of office and that even if it was arbitrary no one was shown by the evidence adduced by the prosecution to have been prejudiced.

First, what is contract splitting?

PW5 and PW6 gave evidence that contract splitting is a specialized term within the register of procurement in government circles. They both gave similar definitions.

PW5 is a civil servant of about 28 years experience who had held various senior and sensitive positions in the Federal Civil Service while PW6 is a quantity surveyor of about 18 years experience who was a pioneer consultant

85 in the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit and had worked subsequently as an expert in procurement related areas in the Federal Civil Service.

In the words of PW5 “contract splitting simply means in government parlance an intention or deliberate intention to bring the approval limit within the threshold of the approving authority instead of taking it to the higher approving authority.”

PW6 was more elaborate saying “….there is a register term for splitting in procurement ……………… I agree that in English, every profession has its register, and in procurement there are registers that are associated with it…. I likened this with the building of the courtroom which has different components. In this regard, in government contracts, we don’t award the roof separately, the wall separately and the fuse, we award this to a contractor and this case in question was awarded to one single contractor, in three different contracts. So, that was why it was referred to as splitting and the intention from the procurement procedure in such cases is to avoid a threshold and the threshold as far as the board is concerned is 20 million. It is seen that the three components added up together, would exceed 20 million and would exceed the approving limit of the board. So, in order for the board to achieve the award, it had to split it into three, so that the sum total of each individual contract would fall below the approval limit of the board. So, it enables the board to award the contract instead of a higher authority, the ministerial tender board or the federal executive council…”

From their perspective therefore, it can be described as the splitting of contracts with an intention to bringing it within the threshold of the approval limit of the approving authority instead of taking it to the higher approving authority.

The definition offered by the prosecution was not shown by the defence to be incorrect under cross-examination and no competing piece of evidence giving an opposing definition was provided. Having failed to provide controverting definition and having failed to demonstrate the falsity or invalidity of the definition provided by the prosecution, the defence is deemed to have admitted and conceded the issue which lapse cannot be remedied in the final address of counsel. See OFFORLETTE VS STATE (2000) FWLR (PT 12) 2081 at 2102.

86 I am therefore left with no choice than to accept the uncontroverted definition of contract splitting provided by the prosecution witnesses.

Can it then be said that contract splitting is an arbitrary act? The word ‘arbitrary’ was described as ‘depending on individual discretion’. See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8th Edition 112.

According to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia ‘arbitrariness’ is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion.

Mr. Ayanlaja (SAN) urged the case of OJUADE VS IGP (supra) on the court as proposition that contract splitting cannot amount to an arbitrary act within the context of Section 104 of the Criminal Code. While Mr Keyamo argued to the contrary.

The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts presented before the Court in OJUADE VS IGP (supra) which had to do with bribery.

From the understanding provided into the meaning of the word ‘arbitrary’, it follows that contract splitting is subject to no fixed rule but subject to the judgment, preference or will of those engaging in it. I therefore agree with Mr. Keyamo that contract splitting is arbitrary.

The next question is whether the splitting of contracts could be prejudicial to he right of the higher approving authority without proof of such prejudice being provided.

While the defence argued to the contrary stating that prejudice was not proved and citing an Indian High Court decision to persuade the Court, the prosecution asserted that prejudice here could be inferred.

I am inclined to agree with the learned prosecutor that the moment a higher approving body was deprived of the exercise of its legitimate function prejudice has occurred.

Can we then say that any of the contracts approved by the defendants was split as alleged by the prosecution in Counts 58 to 68 herein?

87 The case of the prosecution was that the defendants approved obviously split contracts which could be deduced from the minutes of the meetings exhibit D2 and D3 if perused.

The contract alleged to be split in Count 58 is for the supply of three (3) numbers of Cylinder rubber Fenders size 1000/500 x 500mm. A perusal of exhibits D2 and D3 shows a single contract resembling part of the particulars of the said Count but not identical with it in agenda item 21 of exhibit D2. The contract did not reoccur anywhere else in the two minutes.

Count 59 alleges a split of the supply of marine engine with (one) gearbox, GM 12V 71 series for its “Bonny” in Apapa Dockyard into two contracts to the same contractor Mog Holdings Limited.

In exhibit D2 agenda items 35 and 36 two contracts to the same contractor for the supply of similar items to locations in the same Apapa Dockyard were approved by the NPA board in which all the defendants participated with the 1st defendant presiding. The combined total amount of the said two contracts was $536,876.75 USD (Five Hundred and Thirty-six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-five United State of America dollars seventy five cents). The two contracts were awarded in October 2002 when by exhibit P9 the exchange rate of the US dollar to Naira was N126.75 which by simple arithmetic is well over N60 million.

In Count 60 the supply of Terex Telescopic Mobile Crane (30 tons) for Warri Port Dockyard was alleged to have been split to 3 separate contracts at a total sum of $797,850.00 (Seven hundred and ninety-seven thousand, eight hundred and fifty United States of America Dollars).

Agenda items 32, 33 and 34 of exhibit D2 indicate that at the same meeting, the board of the NPA presided over by the 1st defendant and attended by the other defendants approved three different contracts for supply of the same item Terex Telescopic Mobile Crane (30 tons) to the same location, Warri Port Dockyard each in the same amount of $265, 950.00. The total amount of the 3 contracts for the same item is $797,850.00 which multiplied by the October 2002 exchange rate of the dollar at N126.75 is over N100million.

Count 61 alleges that one contract in the sum of $441,664.00 (Four Hundred and Forty-one Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Four United states of America dollars) for the supply of Cathodic Protection of Steel Sheet

88 Pipewell of Berth 8 Tin- Can Island Port Lagos was split into two separate contracts.

Agenda items 19 and 20 of exhibit D2 indicate the approvals by the defendants of two separate contracts for similar items to two locations in Tin Can Island Port for the total sum alleged i.e. $441,664.00 which when converted at the then prevailing rate of N126.75 comes to over N55 million. The evidence of PW3 that his investigation revealed that the two companies which benefited from the said contracts belonged to the same individual was never controverted by the defence.

Count 62 alleges that one contract in the sum of €807,840.00 (Eight Hundred and Seven Thousand, eight Hundred and Forty Euros) for the supply of two (2) numbers Mafi Standard roll Tractors at Roro Port was split into two separate contracts.

Items 15N of exhibit D3 indicate the approval by the defendant of the supply of 2 Mafi tractors, 2 Mafi standard Roll Trailers and 2 Mafi Gooseneck for use at RoRo Port while 15O in exhibit D3 indicate the approval by the defendants of unspecified numbers of Mafi Tractors to the Container Terminal Port. The two contracts were for the same amount of 403.920 Euros.

Apart from the similarity in the amounts nothing else suggests that the items in the two contracts could have been awarded in the same contract.

Count 63 alleges that one contract in the sum of €708,990.00 (Seven Hundred and Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety Euros) for the supply, installation and commissioning of 25m floor light poles with fitting at Kirikiri Lighter Terminal Phase 1 was split into two separate contracts and awarded to the same company. Agenda item 10 of exhibit D2 the minutes of 9th board meeting held in 2002 indicate the approval by the defendant of a contract for part of the items in issue while the remainder was approved in item 15M in exhibit D3 the minutes of the 11th board meeting held in June 2003.

This may not accord with the given definition of contract splitting as from item M of exhibit D3 the project appeared to have been embarked on in stages.

89 Count 64 alleges that one contract in the sum of €697,725.00 (Six Hundred and Ninety-seven Thousand, seven Hundred and Twenty five Euros) for the replacement & installation of 11 KV High Tension (incomer, outgoing Transformer) panels with accessories at Tin Can Island Port was split.

Items 15T and 15U in exhibit D3 indicate that the defendants approved similar contracts to be performed at the same location in Tin Can Island Port for the same amounts to the same contractor while exhibit 15P indicate a similar contract to a different contractor at the same Port all supporting the particulars of the Count. The said total amount of €697,725.00 when converted at the June 2003 CBN prevailing rate of N145.2532 to the Euro comes to over N100million.

The specific evidence of PW6 asserting that the projects were in the same location and the corroborative evidence of PW3 that he visited the location and confirmed the location to be the same and that the two companies the 3 contracts were awarded to belong to the same individual, were never controverted by the defence.

Count 65 alleges that one contract in the sum of €472,500.00 (Four Hundred and seventy Two Thousand, five Hundred Euros) for the supply and commissioning of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault Test Van with distance measurement tech & high tension instrument was split into two separate contracts.

Items 15Q and 15R of exhibit D3 indicate that two separate contracts for the supply of 3 phase 70 KVA cable fault Test Vans with distance measurement tech & high tension instrument for use at two different locations were awarded for the same amounts at a total sum equal to the alleged €472,500.00 which when converted at the prevailing CBN rate of N145.2532 comes to almost N70million.

Count 66 alleges that one contract in the sum of £934,581.00 (Nine Hundred and Thirty-four Thousand, five hundred and Eighty-one British Pound Sterling) for the supply of 1645KVA 11K, 3 (phase) 50Hz Generator sets, water-cooled Cummins Industrial Diesel engines operating at 1500 RPM coupled with a Brushless Stanford Alternator, continuous output was split into four separate contracts.

90 Agenda 13 of exhibit D2 indicates the approval of a generator of the alleged specifications to complement the electricity supplies at Apapa Ports Complex generally in October, 2002 while item 15J in exhibit D3 indicates another approval in June 2003 for a similar generator to service the Continental Shipyard, Apapa specifically and 15K is the approval for a separate contract for the supply and installation of control panel for the same generator at Continental Shipyard. The total sum for the first one is £211,090.00 while the total sum for the June 2003 approvals is 519,096.00 an addition of which is far from the sum of 934,581.00 alleged in the said Count. The space of time between the two sets of approvals cannot also be ignored.

Count 67 alleges that one contract in the sum of £869,575.02 (Eight Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, five Hundred and seventy-five British pound sterling two pence) for complete replacement of obsolete High Tension Panels with Breakers at S/S Tin-Can, Apapa was split.

Agenda Items 16, 22, 23 and 24 of exhibit D2 all indicate approvals by the defendants for complete replacement of obsolete high tension panels with breakers at the same Tin Can Island Port for a total sum of well over N150 million when converted at the then prevailing CBN rate of N197.666 to the British pound sterling.

Count 68 alleges that one contract in the sum of £346,500 (Three hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Five Hundred British Pound Sterling) for the supply of Anti Pollution Equipments at Onne Port was split into two separate contracts.

Agenda items 44, 45 and 46 of exhibit D2 indicate approvals for different types of anti pollution equipments for use at Onne Port. In the absence of evidence that the equipments are the same or that they could have been supplied in a single contract, there is nothing upon which it could be concluded that the items were split.

I therefore hold that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the Contracts in Counts 58, 62, 63, 66 and 68 were split while I hold that there is sufficient evidence before the Court that Counts 59, 60, 61, 64, 65 and 67 were split.

91 Furthermore, it is significant that the total sums of each of the contracts found to have been split is in excess of all the approval limits before the Court be it exhibits D4 and D5 the pre 2001 limit alluded to by the defendants or exhibits D9 and P3 the pre and post 2001 limits contended by the prosecution.

Also, the presentations in respect of the split items were made in many instances sequentially and were not obscured as to deceive the discerning mind. This implies that these splits were obvious and could have been discovered and queried if good faith were at play.

This now leaves the major argument of the defence as to whether the defendants as board members could be held liable for actions perpetrated by their subordinates for according to them it is only logical and in accord with primordial wisdom that it is the offending finger that would be severed by the monarch.

The response of the prosecution was that the defendants’ activities in granting approval brought them within the degree of culpability envisaged in Section 7 of the Criminal Code.

Section 7 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

“7. When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say-

(a) every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence; (b) every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; (c) every person who aids another person in committing the offence; (d) any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

In the fourth case he may be charged either with himself committing the offence or with counselling or procuring its commission. A conviction of counselling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence.

92 Any person who procures another to do or omit to do any act of such a nature that, if he had himself done the act or made the omission, the act or omission would have constituted an offence on his part, is guilty of an offence of the same kind, and is liable to the same punishment, as if he had himself done the act or made the omission; and he may be charged with himself doing the act or making the omission.”

It is not contested that the defendants sitting as directors on the board of the NPA had a duty to scrutinize contracts presented before them for approval. Failure of the defendants to do this will amount to an omission on their part and where an offence is disclosed to have been occasioned by their omission, I agree with Mr. Keyamo that it would bring them within the contemplation of the above quoted Section 7 as being directly culpable.

This accords with the doctrine of ‘the responsible corporate officer’ earlier alluded to in this judgment. This doctrine was introduced by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1943 in the case of UNITED STATES VS DOTTERWEICH (supra). In that case, the President of a drug repackaging company was charged with violating the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, although he was not aware that some drugs sold by his company were mislabeled, the Court extended liability to him.

Later in the 1975 case of UNITED STATES V. PARK (supra), the same Court set out the elements of a responsible corporate officer’s liability. Officers would be liable for a criminal violation if their position in the company gives them the responsibility and authority to prevent or correct a violation and if they failed to do so. Generally the court must find that the defendant performed a wrongful act or failed to take action to prevent a wrongful act; under the doctrine, the acts of junior employees are thereby imputed to the officers. See JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY, published for Northwestern University School of Law by University of Illinois Press, 1325 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Available at www.law.nwu.edu/depts/legalpub/jclc/subscriptions/.

Section 2 (2) of the NPA Act provides that the Chairman and members of the board shall “be persons with proven integrity and with relevant cognitive experience” and shall be appointed by the President on the recommendations of the Minister of Transport.

93 Persons acknowledged out millions of Nigerians by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to be of proven integrity and of cognitive experience in relation to the activities of the NPA cannot claim ignorance or simply play Pontius Pilate when obviously irregular contracts placed before them were approved by them without question. It amounts to willful blindness and must have its consequences.

By Section 10 (3) (b) and (5) (c) of the NPA Act the board of the NPA is given powers to control the Managing director and Executive directors of the NPA. The board was also given express powers in the said Act to obtain advice from non members and co-opt such special members for specific purposes. Such a board cannot claim inadequacy. After all, as the ancient wisdom says; you cannot bear the title of eagle and be unable to prey on chickens. The culpability of the defendants in this regard is direct and not vicarious.

I therefore reject the defence put forward by the defendants in this regard as totally untenable.

I hold that the defendants while employed in the public service as Chairman and directors respectively on the board of the NPA at the material times of exhibits D2 and D3 did approve split contracts. It is an arbitrary act which prejudiced the approving authorities superior to the NPA board constituted by them at that time, and that they thereby abused their offices.

In totality therefore I hold that the prosecution failed to prove Counts 58, 62, 63, 66 and 68 beyond reasonable doubt against the defendants while I hold that Counts 59, 60, 61, 64, 65 and 67 respectively have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the defendants.

I now proceed to the third issue relating to alleged disobedience of lawful orders contained in Counts 9-57 pursuant to Section 203 of the Criminal Code. The said Section provides as follows:

“ 203.Any person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, disobeys any lawful order issued by any person authorised by any Order, Act, Law, or Statute, to make the order, is guilty of a misdemeanour, unless some mode of proceeding against him for such disobedience is expressly provided by Order, Act, Law, or Statute, and is intended to be exclusive of all other punishment.

The offender is liable to imprisonment for one year.”

For the prosecution to succeed here, it must prove that there was a lawful order issued by a person so authorized by some Order, Act, Law or Statute, that the defendants disobeyed that order and that no mode of proceeding against such disobedience is expressly provided by some Order, Act, Law or Statute intended to be exclusive of all other punishment.

The defendants would successfully resist the charge if they establish a lawful excuse for the disobedience.

The order in contention here is a circular, copy of which is before the Court as exhibit P3.

Can it be said that exhibit P3 is a lawful order to the NPA?

On the face thereof exhibit P3 was signed directly by the then Minister of Finance and it is titled ‘NEW POLICY GUIDELINES FOR PROCUREMENT AND AWARD OF CONTRACTS IN GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES/PARASTALS”.

It is not in dispute that the NPA is a government parastatal. What is being contended by the defence is that the NPA is not subject to the directives of the Minister of Finance and that the Federal Executive Council is not a body known to law.

A cursory look at exhibit P3 indicates that it is a directive of the Minister of Finance based on the collective position of the Federal Government. Ministers of the Federal Republic draw their legality from the Constitution. Specifically Section 147 establishes the offices of Ministers of the Federal Republic while Section 148 (1) empowers them to administer as directed by the President.

Section 148 (2) is particularly relevant in relation to the legality or otherwise of the Federal Executive Council. It provides as follows:

“(2) The President shall hold regular meetings with the Vice-President and all the Ministers of the Government of the Federation for the purposes of -

95 (a) determining the general direction of domestic and foreign policies of the Government of the Federation;

(b) co-ordinating the activities of the President, the Vice-President and the Ministers of the Government of the Federation in the discharge of their executive responsibilities; and

(c) advising the President generally in discharge of his executive functions other than those functions with respect to which he is required by this Constitution to seek the advice or act on the recommendation of any other person or body.”

It is a notorious fact in respect of which the Court can justifiably take judicial notice that the composition and functions of the Federal Executive Council are as provided for in Section 148 (2) of the Constitution earlier set out. This Court cannot in the light thereof accept the contention of the defence that the Federal Executive Council is an illegal body unknown to law.

What is more, by the express contents of the minutes of the meetings of the NPA board presided over by the 1st defendant and participated in by the other defendants which were tendered by the defence before the Court as exhibits D2 and D3, the defendants acknowledged and deferred to the existence and supervisory superiority of the Federal Executive Council on several occasions.

In particular this would be seen in Agenda items 9, 28, 52 and 55 in exhibit D2 and items 8, 10, 14A, 14B, 14C, 15B, 15K and 15L of exhibit D3. While majority of these instances relate to contract approvals, item 8 in exhibit D3 relate to Policy on Ports Development while item 10 of exhibit D3 relate to Expansion of West African Container Terminal (WATC), Federal Ocean Terminal (FOT) Onne.

The above references cannot in any way be reconciled with the position of the defendants before this Court that the NPA never took instructions from the Federal Executive Council and was only responsible to the Minister of Transport and that the Federal Executive Council it had been deferring to is unknown to law.

96 The further assertion by the defence that autonomy for the NPA is envisaged by the NPA Act, will of necessity require a perusal of the said Act.

Pursuant to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the said NPA Act, members of the NPA board are appointed and removed by the President without legal constraints thereby implying that security of tenure for directors is absent.

Part IV comprising Sections 13 to 23 deals with financial matters.

By Section 14 of the said Act, management of the reserve funds of the NPA is at the directive of the Minister of Transport. By Sections16, 17 and 18 the NPA can only borrow money on the approval of the same Minister. By Section 19 it can only invest on the approval of the said Minister. Section 20 makes it mandatory for the NPA to submit annual estimates of its income and expenditure to the President and it can only appoint auditors in accordance with the guidelines supplied by the Auditor-General of the Federation. While pursuant to Section 21 it submits periodic returns of its activities to the same Minister of Transport.

Part V contains provisions relating to land. The NPA acquires land through the offices of the President, and cannot unilaterally grant leases. Ports under it can only be declared by the Minister of Transport, regulations for control and maintenance of Ports under it are as approved by the Minister, Pilotage districts and regulation are as directed by the same Minister.

Permeating the entire Act are various provisions ensuring supervision of the NPA by the Minister of Transport or some other functionary of the Federal Government and one cannot but come to the inevitable conclusion that the intention of the legislature in enacting the NPA Act is to keep the NPA strictly within government ambit and control. No autonomy as canvassed by the defence is evident in the NPA Act and I cannot find any merit in the said proposition.

Furthermore, Exhibit P3 was not signed by the Minister of Finance for the Federal Executive Council but in his capacity as Minister of Finance, a perfectly lawful capacity.

I therefore hold that exhibit P3 is a lawful order.

97 The next question to be answered is whether exhibit P3 was brought to the attention of the defendants from a person so authorized by the law.

The contention of the prosecution was that a copy of the circular before the Court as exhibit P3 was attached to a letter from the Minister of Transport and brought to the attention of the defendants by PW4. This was confirmed by PW4 in his testimony before the Court.

By participating in the meeting where according to the prosecution the decision to allegedly disobey the lawful order in issue was consummated, PW4 is a participis criminis and consequently an accomplice whose evidence requires corroboration before it could be believed. See CHIEF ODOFIN BELLO VS THE STATE (1967) NMLR 1 and AMADI VS STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 314) 644.

The needed corroboration in this instance is first contained in Agenda Item 69 (E) pages 181 to 182 of exhibit D2 the minutes of the 9th meeting of the board of directors of the NPA, at which the 1st defendant presided and in which all the defendants participated. The document was tendered by the defence and was relied on severally by them in the course of the trial.

The said portion is quoted in full as follows:

“ (E) NEW FINANCIAL APPROVAL LEVELS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR”

The Ministry Representative informed the Board that new financial levels had been approved for all strata of Management in the public sector by the Minister of Finance. He also made available to members copies of the letter from the Honourable Minister of Transport to the Managing Director to which the circular from the Minister of Finance was attached.

The Board deliberated extensively on the new approval levels, particularly that of the Managing Director which had been stated to be N700,000.00 and

RESOLVED: That the board had noted the new financial levels approved for officials in the public sector as contained in the brief of the Ministry’s Representative.

98 (2) That a letter be written to the Honorable Minister of Transport informing him that the new approval levels particularly that of the Managing Director which was stated to be N700,000.00 could grind the activities of the Nigerian Ports Authority to a halt and hindered its operations as the amount was grossly inadequate.

(3) That because of the capital intensive nature of Port operations, the Minister should be requested to take a critical look at the new approval levels as they affected all strata of authorities in the Organization.

(4) That the approval levels granted to the Authority vide the Honourable Minister’s letter, reference No. T.0160/S.103/T, dated 4th May, 1999 operated by the Authority should be allowed to subsist until enhanced approvals were approved.

(5) That the 1999 approval levels were inadequate due to the economic situation in the Country and the world in general.

(6) That due to the capital intensive nature of the operations of the Authority and being the gateway to the nation’s economy, the Honourable Minister should be requested to recommend for appropriate approval, the following new approval levels for the Authority:

(i) Managing Director – N20million. (ii) Executive Management Committee - N75million. (iii) Board - 150million

(7) That the board had also noted that some Government Parastatals- NNPC, Central Bank etc had been given enhanced approval levels.”

Further corroboration was also provided in another document also tendered by the defence; exhibit D3 the minutes of the 11th board of directors meeting of the NPA once again presided over by the 1st defendant and attended by all the defendants.

After the opening prayers the first resolution at that meeting was as follows:

“That the minutes of the 9th Board meeting held on the 16th October 2002, which had been previously circulated and taken as read be and are hereby adopted.”

99 Item 5B (i) at that meeting was as follows;

“(i) Enhanced approval Level The Ministry’s representative informed members that the new approval level had not been effected before the former Honourable Minister of Transport completed his term. She said that the letter was awaiting the new Minister’s signature. Members however felt that in the absence of the Minister, the Permanent Secretary ought to have signed the letter.”

Additional corroboration for the testimony of PW4 on the awareness by the defendants of exhibit P3 was provided in the extra judicial statements of the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants tendered without objection before the Court.

In his extra judicial statements tendered before the Court, the 1st defendant never raised non-awareness or non-service but instead spoke about non- feasibility of implementation.

The Managing Director of the NPA at the material time of exhibits D2 and D3 was the 2nd defendant. In his extra judicial statement exhibit P19 he stated as follows:

“ I have seen a circular from the Federal Ministry of Finance with ref No F15775 dated 27th June 2001 signed by the then Hon. Minister of Finance Mallam Adamu Ciroma shown to me by the EFCC. The circular in respect of new policy guideline for procurement and award of contracts in Government Ministries and Parastatals. This circular outlined level of ministries and parastatals as follows Federal Executive Council above N50million while N20-N50million ministerial tenders board, N20million board of directors, N1million contracts perm. Secretaries N700,000= and below are to be by chief executives of parastatals. I was aware of the circular and was discussed at the board meeting. During my tenure NPA did not comply with the circular…….”

3rd defendant in his own statement could not remember if the circular was discussed and also denied being aware of the content but before the Court he had the opportunity but did not deny attending the meeting where it was discussed and also did not deny being present at the subsequent meeting where earlier minutes were ratified. He instead adopted the testimony of the 1st defendant as did the other defendants.

100 4th defendant stated as follows: “I was shown a circular ref no F15775 dated 27th June 2001 from the Minster of Finance on new policy guideline on procurement and award of contracts in government ministries/parastatals signed by the then Minister of Finance, Mallam Adamu Ciroma. The circular was shown to me at the EFCC office. I have seen the circular before, as I could remember we discussed it at the board and we agreed with the representative of the Minister to write to the Federal Ministry of Transport to secure a waiver on the limits set out in the circular.”

5th defendant on his own had this to say; “There was a circular on approval limit of board to twenty million naira. The board reaction after receiving the circular of the approval limit, is to following the instruction. To the best of my knowledge the directives was comply by the board. But if the board approve above the limit the management mislead the board member.”

The 6th defendant stated thus on his part: “circular no F15775 dated 27th June 2001 titled New Policy Guideline for Procurement and Award of Contracts in Govt Ministries/parastatals was shown to me today at EFCC office and haven gone through, I could remember vividly that it was discussed but the implementation was that of the management. The board had no right to ignore such instruction but whether or not it was implemented was why the audit committee was later set up to determine compliance.”

In the face of these overwhelming admissions by the defendants, it cannot be asserted that exhibit P3 was never brought to their attention. I believe the testimony of PW4 that he did bring the circular in question, copy of which is exhibit P3 to the attention of the defendants.

Part of the contentions of the defendants was that the said circular was not brought formally through the managing director or under the hand of the Minister of Transport and that the minutes which stated otherwise was incorrect.

I have perused the NPA Act and I could not see any portion thereof which provided that communications to the board of the NPA must be through the Managing Director of the NPA.

Furthermore, the defendants who have taken copious advantages of the minutes, exhibit D2 and D3 and have asserted awareness of the circular exhibit P3 cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate as a party who has

101 asserted the existence of a fact is estopped from denying the existence of that fact. See EZEONWU VS ONYEOCHI (1996) 6 NWLR (PT 438) 499.

I do not believe the testimony of the 1st defendant as DW1 that the minutes, exhibit D2 and D3 were incorrect and I reject it accordingly. I hold that indeed the circular copy of which is before the Court as exhibit P3 was communicated to the defendants by the Minister of Transport through PW4 as contained in exhibit D2.

Having so found can it then be asserted that the said circular got to the defendants through an inappropriate channel?

Section 124 of the NPA Act provides that “the Minister may give to the Authority directives of a general nature or relating generally to matters of policy with regard to the exercise by the Authority of its functions and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the directives.”

A simple construction of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that the powers of the Minister of Transport to give instructions to the NPA is wide and unfettered, and the obligation of the NPA including its board to comply non-discretionary.

I cannot accept the later posture now displayed by the defendants on the said circular and I reject it. I therefore hold that the circular in question is a lawful order which was made to the defendants from a person lawfully authorized to do so.

The next question to be answered is whether the defendants did obey the said circular. Once again, we go into the contents of exhibits D2 and D3.

The 9th board meeting covered by exhibit D2 was held over three different dates; 16th October, 2002, 18th October, 2002 and 12th November, 2002. Contracts had been awarded at the two earlier sessions before the circular in question was introduced on 12th November, 2002 in the course of the final session.

Contracts were also awarded in the 11th board meeting covered by exhibit D3 held in June, 2003.

102 Before proceeding further it would be necessary to examine the said counts 9 to 57 in respect of which the alleged disobedience was said to have been committed and see if the allegations could be supported by the contents of exhibits D2 and D3 offered in proof.

The contract in count 9 was approved as agenda 30 in exhibit D2, Count 10 as item 15H in exhibit D3, Count 11 as item 15S in exhibit D3, Count 12 as item 15F in exhibit D3, the contracts in Counts 13 and 14 could not be traced in the two exhibits, Count 15 as agenda 31 in exhibit D2, Count 16 as agenda 36 in exhibit D2, contracts in Counts 17 and 18 could not be traced in the two exhibits.

The contract in Count 19 was approved as agenda 17 in exhibit D2, Count 20 as agenda 35 in exhibit D2, Count 21 as agenda 11 in exhibit D2, Count 22 as agenda 42 in exhibit D2, Count 23 as item 15G in exhibit D3, Count 24 as item 15N in exhibit D3, Count 25 as item 15O in exhibit D3, Count 26 as agenda 10 in exhibit D2, Count 27 as item 15P in exhibit D3, Count 28 as item 15Q in exhibit D3, Count 29 as item 15M in exhibit D3 while the contracts in Count 30 and 31 could not be traced in the two exhibits.

The contract in count 32 was approved as agenda item 14 in exhibit D2, count 33 as agenda 15 in exhibit D2, count 34 as agenda 22 in exhibit D2, count 35 as agenda 24 in exhibit D2, count 36 as agenda item 29 in exhibit D2, count 37 as agenda 39 of exhibit D2, count 38 as agenda 41 in exhibit D2, count 39 as agenda item 42 in exhibit D2, count 40 as agenda 46 in exhibit D2, count 41 as agenda 44 in exhibit D2, count 42 approved on pages 103-104 of exhibit D2, count 43 as agenda 48 in exhibit D2, count 44 as agenda 49 in exhibit D2, while the contract contained in count 45 as seen in agenda 14A of exhibit D3 was approved by the defendants to be recommended to the Federal Executive Council and was as such not approved by them.

The contract in count 46 was approved in item 15J of exhibit D3, contracts in counts 47 and 48 could not be traced in exhibits D2 and D3 while the alleged mobilization in count 49 was seen to have been so approved in respect of the contract involved as seen in agenda 39 of exhibit D2 ditto for count 50 as seen in agenda 53 of exhibit D2, count 51 was approved as seen in agenda 54 of exhibit D2 and for count 52 as seen in item 15J of exhibit D3.

103 The mobilization alleged in count 53 was seen to have been approved in item 15O of exhibit D3, count 54 in item 15P of exhibit D3, count 55 as seen in item 15Q of exhibit D3, count 56 as seen in item 15R of exhibit D3 and finally count 57 as could be seen in item 15T of exhibit D3.

The value of each of the approved contracts is more than N20million when converted into naira using the applicable Central Bank of Nigeria exchange rates at the relevant date as contained in the attachment to exhibit P9.

The prosecution adduced evidence and canvassed that if the defendants intended to obey the said circular, they could recall the contracts already approved at the earlier sessions of the 9th board meeting and bring them into conformity with the approved limit in the circular in issue.

But the defence argued to the contrary insisting that such activity would be retroactive.

Before answering this, it might be important to consider what happened in June 2003 at the 11th board meeting wherein as earlier quoted it was discussed that the Minister of Transport was yet to accede to the request for waiver.

The minutes recorded several contracts as having been awarded at prices far higher than stipulated in the circular, copy of which is exhibit P3. The approvals made by the defendants in a number of instances also included mobilization fees substantially higher than as contained in the said circular.

It could be contended that the items involved in the earlier approvals in exhibit D2 were urgently required and had probably been executed before the said circular was brought to the attention of the defendants several days after the approvals.

This contention would however be negated by what could be seen from exhibit D3 on what transpired at the 11th board meeting held more than eight months after the approvals. Under matters arising item 3.A.4 the said meeting resolved as follows and I quote;

“i That it had been informed that most of the contracts awarded at the 9th Board Meeting had not been executed”.

104 Evident from this resolution is that most of the contracts approved at the 9th board meeting which were the ones covered by exhibit D2 were yet to be executed many months after the approval. It then meant that the prosecution was right in asserting that the approvals could be recalled mere days after they were made and while the meeting which approved them was still ongoing.

It is instructive that while the defendants raised complaints about the implications of the new approval limit they did not complain about the directives concerning payment of mobilization fees and yet they refused to comply with that aspect as well.

These facts before the Court make it abundantly clear that the defendants had no intention to comply with the said circular copy of which is before the Court as exhibit P3 and they did disobey it.

The next question is whether there is a mode of proceeding against such disobedience expressly provided by some Order, Act, Law or Statute and intended to be exclusive of all other punishment.

It was submitted for the defence that punishment for disobedience is administrative and not penal.

The entire content of exhibit P3 in my view does not support such a position. Nothing therein suggests an exclusive mode of proceeding against disobedience thereto as to render criminal prosecution superfluous.

The above findings notwithstanding, the defendants would successfully resist the allegations if they establish a lawful excuse for their disobedience.

On this, the 1st defendant gave extensive testimony of the dire implications for the economy and national interest if the circular in question was implemented.

This position was corroborated by PW4 under cross-examination.

The position of the learned prosecutor and the other prosecution witnesses was that while there may be good reasons to seek a presidential waiver in

105 respect of the application of the said circular, flagrant disobedience was not the proper course of action.

As appointees of the President of Nigeria, the defendants are subject to his direct and indirect authority. The authority behind the circular exhibit P3 extends not only to the President but ultimately to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Paragraph 2 of the said circular begins with the following word:

“ After extensive consultations with Stakeholders, the following guidelines are being issued to fully implement the new government policy:”

An implication of the preamble is that exhibit P3 is not the product of some whim but based on wide consultations extending beyond the narrow purview of the NPA.

The defendants cannot claim to be more catholic than the Pope. While infallibility is beyond any man, the overall mandate to administer the polity including the NPA is that of the President and where government functionaries are at liberty to apply or reject government policies as they so will, anarchy would ensue. Such is a manifestation of a failed State.

I cannot as such in the entire circumstances presented consider the explanations offered by the defendants as constituting a lawful excuse to justify their disobedience.

I therefore hold that the prosecution failed to prove Counts 13, 14, 17, 18, 30, 31, 45, 47 and 48 against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

While I find that the prosecution has established counts 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57 against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

The last issue is as regards Count 8 which is conspiracy to commit the offence alleged in Counts 9-to 57 contrary to Section 517 of the Criminal Code.

The said Section provides as follows:

106 517. “Any person who conspires with another to commit any offence which is not a felony, or to do any act in any part of the world, which if done in Nigeria would be an offence but not a felony, and which is an offence under the laws in force in the place where it is proposed to be done, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for two years. The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.”

Legally conspiracy simply means the meeting of two or more minds to carry out an unlawful purpose or to carry out a lawful purpose in an unlawful way. In effect, the purpose of the meeting of the two minds or more minds is to commit an offence.

While the law does not require the physical meeting of the minds in a predetermined or known place, as the offence of conspiracy could be committed by written communication, the prosecution must establish that the criminal minds really met somewhere to hatch a crime. See SHODIYA VS STATE (1992) 3 NWLR (PT 230) 457 at 499.

For the prosecution to succeed in proving the offence of Conspiracy, it must prove the conspiracy as described in the charge and that the defendants were engaged in it or prove the circumstances from which the judge may presume or infer it. It may not always be proved by direct evidence as it is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts and conducts of the parties accused, done or carried out in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. See IKEMSON VS STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 110) 455 and SHODIYA VS STATE (supra) at 472.

Having held that the disobedience of the circular, copy of which is before the Court as exhibit P3 is unlawful it follows that the agreement to engage in the said unlawful act as could be seen in the minutes of meetings exhibits D2 and D3 at which the 1st defendant presided while the other defendants participated would satisfy the legal ingredients thereof.

I accordingly hold that the prosecution has made out this Count as well beyond reasonable doubt.

The point left is the submission of the defence as to formal defects and irregularities in the dates on a number of the Counts.

107 It will be noted that in each Count the phrase ‘on or about’ was used as regards the date the alleged offence was committed. By so doing the prosecution already opted out of commitment to precision on dates.

When the phrase on or about is used in a charge it is not necessary to prove the precise date the alleged offence was committed. See AWOPEJO VS STATE (2000) 6 NWLR (PT 659) 1.

On the alleged formal defects in the Counts generally, it is noted that the particulars of each of the Counts were of sufficient clarity to put the defendants on notice as to the allegations against them.

Each of the defendants expressly stated that he understood each Count when plea was being taken and this was repeated in the witness box by the 1st defendant who testified on behalf of all the defendants.

The defendants were never misled and conducted their defence in the full understanding of the allegations against them.

I accordingly agree with the prosecution that it is too late in the day to complain about formal defects in the charge. See NDUKWE VS LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (PT 1026) 1,FRN VS ADEWUNMI (2007) 10 NWLR (PT 1042) 399 at 423-424 and SHEKETE VS NAF (2007) 14 NWLR (PT 1053) 159.

In totality therefore, I find each of the defendants not guilty on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 30, 31, 45, 47, 48, 58, 62, 63, 66 and 68 respectively and I hereby discharge and acquit each of them on each of those Counts.

While I find each of the defendants guilty as charged on each of Counts 8,9,10,11,12,15,16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,3 9,40,41,42, 43,44,46,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,59,60,61,64,65 and 67 respectively and I hereby convict each one of them on each of the said Counts respectively.

Hon. Justice J.O.K. Oyewole

108 Appearances: Mr. Festus Keyamo with him Mr. A.T. Omaghomi, Mr. E. C. Ekpebe, Miss C.O. Metuonu and Miss G. Okhajagu for prosecution. Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja (SAN) with him Mr. Bambo Adesanya (SAN), Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), Otunba K.K. Kalejaye (SAN), Otunba A.A. Adegbesan, Mr. T. Olayinka, Miss O. Diya, Miss O. Ayanlaja, Miss J. Adebiyi, Mr O. Rhodes- Vivor, Miss B.B. Alo and Mr. A.O. Ashas for the 1st defendant. Mr. Dele Adesina (SAN) with him Mr. Bisi Ade-Ademuwagun, Mr. F. Afolayan, Mrs K. Bello, Mr. O. Olaiya and Mr. K. Otufale for the 2nd defendant. Mr. Gbenga Ojo with him Mr. Segun Olaniyi, Mrs M.F. Tinubu, Mrs O. Kappo and Mr. M. Abdulkareem for the 3rd defendant. Mr. Rotimi Sanni for the 4th defendant. Chief J.K. Gadzama (SAN) with him Mr. U. Chikelue, Mr. O Ukoh, Mr. D. Famakin-Johnson and Mr. A. Akande for the 5th defendant. Mr. Yinka Farounbi with him Miss B. Adegbokiki and Miss C. Aigbe for the 6th defendant.

109