Court acquits Malabu Oil, Aliyu Abubakar of OPL 245 deal charges

The Federal High Court in Abuja has discharged and acquitted Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, the Chairman of AA Oil Limited, Aliyu Abubakar, and six other defendants of money laundering charges relating to the OPL 245 deal.

Delivering judgement on Thursday, Judge Inyang Ekwo held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to prove the allegations against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt, as required by law.

The EFCC had charged Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, A-Group Construction Company Limited, Rocky Top Resources Limited, Mega Tech Engineering Limited, Novel Properties and Development Company Limited, Imperial Union Limited, Carlin International Nigeria Limited and Mr Abubakar as the first to the eighth defendants in the case.

The charges concerned alleged fraudulent dealings involving the controversial Oil Prospecting Licence 245 (OPL 245) oil block.

But in the judgement, Judge Ekwo faulted the EFCC’s investigation, finding that the investigative officer had not concluded the investigation before the charge was filed.

The judge said the court had a duty to examine how an investigation was conducted and determine whether it was satisfactory. He added that an investigating officer was expected to present evidence of actual investigative work rather than rely on assumptions.

He said where the investigative officer “fails to tender a document or findings made during the course of proceedings, there is something wrong with the investigation.”

He added that it was established law that an investigation must be concluded before a charge is filed, noting that the case before him showed that this requirement had not been met.

Judge Ekwo also faulted the EFCC for proceeding with the prosecution despite a 2018 directive from the then Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, advising against prosecuting the defendants because of insufficient evidence.

The judge said the prosecution ought not to have filed the charges against the advice of the AGF, whom he said would have considered the available evidence before issuing the directive.

“No prosecuting agency is higher in law than the AGF,” he said, adding that a prosecuting agency should not act in a way that suggests it could disregard the attorney-general’s advice or directive and still expect the court to endorse its actions.

He said the court would not endorse a situation in which different arms of the prosecution acted against one another.

Judge Ekwo subsequently held that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations in counts one to 43 against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

“I hereby make an order discharging and acquitting the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants of the respective allegations against each of them in this case,” he declared.

The allegations against Malabu Oil

Among the allegations in the charge, the EFCC accused Malabu Oil and Gas Limited of taking control of funds transferred by the Federal Government into the company’s bank accounts, allegedly in collaboration with three individuals who are at large.

In count two, the commission alleged that Malabu Oil, alongside Seidougha Munamuna, Amaran Joseph and Dauzia Loya Etete, the petreleum minister during thel Sani Abacha regime, took control of $401.54 million transferred by the federal government into the company’s account with First Bank of Nigeria Limited.

In count three, the EFCC alleged that the same defendants took control of another $400 million transferred by the Federal Government into Malabu Oil’s account with Keystone Bank Limited.

The commission alleged that the funds formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activity, contrary to the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011, as amended, and punishable under Section 15(4) of the Act.

The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges during their arraignment.

Abubakar also acquitted in separate N300 million case

In a separate judgement, Judge Ekwo also discharged and acquitted Mr Abubakar of five counts in a money laundering case involving an alleged N300 million payment.

The judge held that the EFCC had failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on it, saying there was no evidence establishing that Mr Abubakar committed the offences for which he was charged.

“The allegations in counts five, six, seven, eight and nine cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge said.

He subsequently ordered the defendant’s discharge.

The separate case arose from charges filed by the EFCC in 2017 against former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, and Mr Abubakar, who were listed as the first and second defendants, respectively.

The commission accused them of money laundering involving an alleged N300 million payment.

On 19 April 2024, Judge Ekwo discharged Mr Adoke after upholding his no-case submission, finding that the prosecution had not established sufficient evidence to require him to defend the allegations.

However, the judge ruled at the time that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Mr Abubakar in counts five to nine, requiring him to defend himself against the allegations.

The judgment brought those remaining counts against Mr Abubakar to an end, with the judge finding that the prosecution had failed to prove them beyond reasonable doubt.

Background to the Malabu case

The Malabu prosecution is linked to the controversy surrounding OPL 245, an oil block awarded to Malabu in 1998. The block later became the subject of investigations into a 2011 settlement involving the Federal Government, Malabu, Shell and Eni, valued at about $1.3 billion.

Investigators subsequently examined the transactions surrounding the settlement, including how the funds were distributed and whether any were diverted.

The EFCC’s prosecution of Mr Abubakar, Malabu Oil and the other companies concerned alleged money laundering arising from dealings linked to the oil block. The separate case involving Mr Adoke and Mr Abubakar concerned the alleged N300 million payment.

The two cases proceeded separately, and the judgments resolved the outstanding charges against the defendants in both proceedings.