 |
| Federal High Court Abuja |
In a significant ruling that closes another chapter in one of Nigeria’s most protracted and internationally scrutinised oil scandals, the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday discharged and acquitted Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, businessman Aliyu Abubakar (Chairman of AA Oil Limited), and six other companies of money laundering and related charges linked to the controversial Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 245.
Justice Inyang Ekwo held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt in two separate cases involving a combined total of around 53 counts. The primary case, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/268/2016 and filed in December 2016, featured a 43-count charge against eight defendants. A second case, FHC/ABJ/CR/31/2017, saw Abubakar alone face remaining counts after former Attorney-General of the Federation Mohammed Bello Adoke was earlier discharged.
The defendants in the main charge were 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 Abubakar. The EFCC alleged involvement of approximately $1 billion and N673 million in money laundering connected to OPL 245 transactions. In specific counts, it claimed Malabu Oil, alongside directors Seidougha Munamuna, Amaran Joseph, and former Petroleum Minister Dauzia Loya Etete (Dan Etete)—described as at large—took control of $401.54 million and $400 million transferred by the Federal Government into Malabu accounts at First Bank of Nigeria and Keystone Bank. These funds, the prosecution argued, were proceeds of unlawful activities under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended). All defendants pleaded not guilty.
The Judge’s Scathing Critique of the Prosecution
Justice Ekwo’s judgment went beyond a simple finding of insufficient evidence. He faulted the EFCC for proceeding with the case despite a 2018 letter from the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation—then under Abubakar Malami (SAN)—advising against prosecution due to insufficient evidence. Malami had assumed office in November 2015, after the charges were filed.
“Before I conclude this judgment, I need to state again that the prosecution ought not to have filed this charge against the advice of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation (HAGF),” the judge stated. He emphasised the constitutional hierarchy: “No prosecuting agency is higher in law than the HAGF.” No action by any agency, he added, should suggest it can defy the AGF’s directive and still prevail in court. The court, he stressed, would not endorse government prosecuting agencies working at cross purposes.
Ekwo further criticised the investigation itself. He found that it had not been properly concluded before the charges were filed. Referring to the Investigating Police Officer (IPO), he declared: “To this end, the IPO must actually demonstrate that he conducted an investigation and not that he merely assumed the existence of the state of fact by guessing them.” He reiterated the established legal principle that investigation must be completed prior to filing a charge. “There is a clear situation where such was not the case.”
In the separate N300 million money laundering case against Abubakar (originally involving Adoke as first defendant), the judge ruled that the allegations in the remaining five counts could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He noted fundamental flaws in the evidence, including a prosecution witness’s forensic analysis of signatures that relied on photocopies rather than original documents. “I find that the evidence of PW9 is fundamentally flawed,” Ekwo held. Adoke had been discharged on 19 April 2024 after the court upheld his no-case submission, though Abubakar was initially required to enter a defence.
Ultimately, Ekwo ordered the full discharge and acquittal of all defendants in both matters, stating that the prosecution had not met the required standard on any of the counts.
Deep Roots: The OPL 245 Saga
The acquittals must be understood against the long, tangled history of OPL 245, one of Nigeria’s most valuable deep-water oil blocks, estimated at various points to hold significant reserves. The licence was awarded on 29 April 1998 by the military government of General Sani Abacha to Malabu Oil and Gas Limited for a $20 million signature bonus.
Malabu paid only about $2 million. Investigations later revealed that Dan Etete, then Petroleum Minister, held a major stake in the company through proxies, alongside interests linked to Abacha’s circle, including his son Mohammed Abacha. This conflict of interest became a central grievance. en.wikipedia.org
In July 2001, President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration revoked the licence, citing irregularities, and reassigned interests involving Shell. Malabu challenged the revocation, leading to years of litigation. A 2006 out-of-court settlement restored the block to Malabu (with presidential approval under Obasanjo), though payment obligations remained contentious. Shell pursued arbitration.
The pivotal 2011 Resolution Agreement under President Goodluck Jonathan resolved competing claims. Malabu relinquished OPL 245 to the Federal Government for $1.092 billion. Shell and Eni simultaneously paid that sum (plus a $208–210 million signature bonus) into a government escrow account at JP Morgan in London for onward transfer to Malabu. The oil majors acquired full rights to the block. Activists and prosecutors alleged that nearly $1.1 billion of the proceeds were channelled as bribes to Nigerian officials and politicians, with Etete and intermediaries benefiting. Shell and Eni maintained the payments were legitimate settlement of commercial claims routed through the government.
The deal triggered multi-jurisdictional investigations. Italian prosecutors pursued Shell, Eni, Etete, and others in Milan; the companies and defendants were largely acquitted in 2021. Nigeria’s claims against JP Morgan over the transfers failed. Domestically, the EFCC charged Adoke, Abubakar, Malabu, and associated companies with money laundering and related offences, alleging the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity and that certain companies (linked to Abubakar) received portions of the money. Abubakar was accused of using his firms to handle proceeds from the deal.
RECOMMENDED ✒︎ Alleged ₦110.4bn Kogi Fraud: Bureau de Change Operator Details ₦1.425bn Forex Deals for Associate of Ex-Governor Yahaya Bello
Broader Implications: Prosecution Standards, Institutional Tensions, and Unresolved Questions
This ruling forms part of a pattern in which Nigerian courts have repeatedly found EFCC cases on OPL 245 wanting. Adoke’s earlier discharge and now the full acquittal of Abubakar and the corporate defendants highlight persistent challenges: incomplete investigations, reliance on secondary evidence, and internal government discord between the AGF’s office and anti-graft agencies. Justice Ekwo’s insistence on the AGF’s primacy underscores constitutional principles that prosecuting agencies are subordinate to the chief law officer, a point with wider implications for coordination in high-stakes cases.
For the EFCC, the outcome raises questions about case preparation in complex, multi-year financial investigations involving international transfers and politically sensitive oil assets. Critics of the agency may see it as evidence of overreach or insufficient grounding; supporters argue that the scale of the alleged diversion justified vigorous pursuit, even if proof ultimately fell short in court. The “at large” status of Etete and certain directors leaves aspects of the original allegations unresolved.
From a governance perspective, the OPL 245 saga exposed systemic weaknesses in Nigeria’s oil licensing regime under military rule, the difficulties of unwinding irregular awards after the return to democracy, and the challenges of enforcing anti-corruption standards across jurisdictions. While Italian and UK proceedings largely cleared the international oil companies of criminal liability, public scepticism about the fairness and transparency of the 2011 settlement persists among civil society groups.
Abubakar, a prominent Abuja-based oil businessman, emerges from the decade-long proceedings without conviction on these charges.
Malabu Oil, long central to the controversy, is similarly cleared in these domestic proceedings. Yet the broader OPL 245 narrative—spanning nearly three decades, multiple administrations, international courts, and billions of dollars—continues to serve as a cautionary case study in the intersection of resource nationalism, elite capture, and the limits of accountability mechanisms.
The judgments reinforce that in Nigerian criminal law, the burden of proof remains exacting.
Allegations, no matter how serious or widely publicised, require rigorous, completed investigation and evidence that meets the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. Whether this outcome prompts internal review within the EFCC or further clarity on the role of AGF directives in ongoing prosecutions remains to be seen. For now, the Federal High Court has drawn a line under these specific charges against Abubakar, Malabu Oil, and the co-defendants.
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Politics and Technology.
Post a Comment