Malabu Oil Scam: Court Rejects EFCC’s Extra-judicial Statements

The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, rejected the extra-judicial statements tendered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as evidence in a money laundering suit filed against Malabu Oil and Gas Limited and seven others.

The judge, Inyang Ekwo, ruling at the end of a trial-within-trial conducted to test the voluntariness of the statements, held that “the law in Section 29 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act rejects a statement obtained by the oppression of the person who made it.”

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Ekwo held that the statements tendered by the EFCC’s prosecuting team were inadmissible, having been obtained under the atmosphere of “hostility, intimidating conduct and threats.”

He said the logic of the draftsman of the Evidence contained in Section 29 (5) of the law was that the word “oppression” can be expanded to include “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use of threat or violence whether or not amounting to torture.”

He said the voluntariness of a statement depended on the facts surrounding a given case.

“Again, I have noted the judicial authorities cited and relied upon by both parties in this case.

“As much as judicial authorities provide precedents on the subject matter of the case generally, it is the facts and circumstances of the case at hand that will determine whether or not a statement which is the subject of trial-within-trial was made voluntarily,” he said.

According to him, there was an existence of mental stress or pressure on the 8th defendant (Aliyu Abubakar) owing to undue hostility, intimidating conduct and threats of the EFCC officials during the making of the statements on 16 and 17 January 2016, recorded by Bashir Abdullahi (PW-A).

According to him, any man facing such a number of investigators will panic within, even when smiling and chatting on the outside.

He said, “Such environment was capable of exerting mental pressure on the 8th defendant and in fact did, and I so hold.”

Mr Ekwo, therefore, held that the statements sought to be tendered were not obtained voluntarily.

“In fact, the evidence of PW-A, PW-B and PW-C were effectively demolished during cross-examination, to the extent that no iota of credibility can be found thereof,” he added.