The Federal Government has appealed the judgment of a Federal High Court that acquitted former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme, NHIS, Dr. Femi Thomas, of multiple counts of money laundering charges.
In a judgement delivered on July 24, 2014, Justice Ayokunle Faji discharged and acquitted Thomas on five of the six counts filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, holding that the agency failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the court convicted Thomas on one count of breaching Nigeria’s cash transaction limit law and sentenced him to pay a fine of N10 million in lieu of imprisonment.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, the EFCC, through a notice of appeal urged the appellate court to set aside the acquittals.
The agency is seeking Thomas’ conviction on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the amended charge, as well as the forfeiture of the $2,198,000 (about N433 million) recovered from him to the Federal Government.
In its grounds of appeal, the EFCC argued that the trial court relied on “imaginary and fanciful doubts” to absolve Thomas despite what it described as clear evidence of unlawful enrichment.
READ ALSO: MRA calls on Governor Bago to immediately reopen Badegi radio
It maintained that Thomas failed to satisfactorily explain the significant increase in his assets while serving as a public officer, as required under Section 140 of the Evidence Act 2011, Section 19(5) of the EFCC Act, and Section 82 of the Lagos State Criminal Law 2011.
The agency also faulted the court for dismissing the adequacy of its investigations and rejecting documentary evidence, including audited financial statements, which it said contradicted Thomas’ explanations.
According to the EFCC, Safeline Agro Business Ltd, allegedly owned by Thomas, declared a pre-tax profit of only N3.9 million in 2014 but purportedly generated $2.2 million the same year—an explanation it described as “unreasonable and unsatisfactory.”
It further argued that the lower court wrongly “picked and chose” between inconsistent pieces of evidence from Thomas instead of rejecting them and accepting the prosecution’s case.
The EFCC also contended that the court failed to attach proper weight to Thomas’ asset declaration forms (Exhibits G1–G12) submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau, which it said undermined.
