In a recent development, a former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, and six others have been discharged by a Federal Capital Territory High Court. This decision came after the court dismissed charges related to the controversial Oil Prospecting Licence, OPL 245, also known as the Malabu Oil scam.
The charges brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Adoke and the other defendants included disobeying legal directives, offering and receiving bribes, conspiracy, and forgery among other offenses.
Adoke, who held the position of AGF and Minister of Justice during Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, was the primary defendant in the case with the suit marked FCT/HC/CR/151/2020.
Alongside Adoke, the other accused parties were Aliyu Abubakar, Rasky Gbinigie, Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, Nigeria Agip Exploration Limited, Shell Nigeria Extra Deep Limited, and Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Limited.
After reviewing the no-case submission from the defendants, Justice Abubakar Kutigi stated that any trial should be driven by evidence. In this instance, the prosecution failed to present key documents or call necessary witnesses to support their case.
Justice Kutigi emphasized that the prosecution did not establish the essential elements of the charges against the defendants, noting that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution to warrant calling on the defendants to defend themselves.
Furthermore, the judge highlighted the lack of evidence in cases involving forgery, where the prosecution did not submit relevant documents as exhibits.
He cautioned against filing charges without substantial evidence, as baseless accusations can harm the integrity of the judicial system.
Praising the prosecution’s acknowledgment in their final submission that there was no case against the defendants, Justice Kutigi expressed regret that it took the prosecution four years to reach this realization.
Quoting the judge, “The defendants should not have been charged in the first place considering the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution to necessitate their defense.”