Court discharges crime Allegations against Akala

An Ikeja Special Offences Court on Monday, discharged a defendant, Abayomi Alaka, accused of retaining crime proceeds.

Justice Mojisola Dada, discharged the defendant, while ruling on his no case submission.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Alaka on three-counts, on March 20, 2024.

The anti-graft agency alleged that the defendant sold a renovated storey building, being aware that same was subject matter of a forfeiture order in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/465/2021.

The building is situated at No. 22 PSSDS Road, Magodo phase two, Lagos

The defendant had pleaded not guilty to the charge.

EFCC’s lawyer, Mr N. K Ukoha, opened the case for the prosecution, and called three witnesses.

EFCC closed its case on Dec.10, 2024.

After the case of the prosecution, defence counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN), informed the court of defence’s intention to file a no case submission.

The prosecution did not oppose.

In the no case submission, Ojo had argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the defendant disposed of the said building, inspite a subsisting forfeiture order.

He had argued that the prosecution neither tendered an affidavit of service of an interim order on the defendant, nor any document evidencing receipt of same.

According to him, “the prosecution also did not tender any evidence of publication of the said interim order of forfeiture in any national newspaper”

In its verdict, the court upheld the testimony of second prosecution witness under cross-examination.

The witness’ testimony was that he had conducted due diligence before advising his client to go ahead with the transaction.

The court, consequently, held among others:

“He confirmed to this court that he inspected the property before its purchase and that he did not see any EFCC inscription on same.

“He further stated that at all times preceding the sale of property nobody showed him any order of court,”

The court, therefore, held that the prosecution had not established a case against the defendant.

“There is no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged offence.and the evidence adduced has been so discredited as a result of cross examination,” the court held

Dada, consequently, held that the case against the defendant failed in its entirety and accordingly discharged him