ABUJA — THE Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday gave details, before a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, of how the immediate past governor of Abia State, Dr Orji Uzor Kalu, diverted the state fund totaling N5 billion, in 36 installments into the account of Slok Nigeria Limited during his tenure. Slok is owned by Kalu and his family.
Kalu, Governor of Abia State between 1999 and 2007, was said to be in the habit of stealing the state fund each time the monthly allocation of the state government was released by the Federal government.He handed over powers to Chief Theodore Orji who was his Chief of Staff, and the EFCC also fingered Orji as the principal facilitator of the looting of Abia State treasury by his predecessor, Orji Kalu.
The Commission backed up its allegation yesterday by reading aloud the statement of one Christie Ohiri, a banker who worked in the fund transfer department of his bank in Umuahia wherein the bank staff indicated that the total sum allegedly looted was diverted in 36 installments.
EFCC spoke yesterday in court through its lead counsel in the case, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, in reaction to an application brought by Kalu requesting an order of the court quashing the entire charge preferred against him for several reasons.
In the application, Kalu had said that the charge against him was incompetent, claiming that it was so because there was an order from an Umuahia high court which stopped his arrest or prosecution pending determination of his substantive suit before the court.
He argued further that his arrest and his on-going trial is a nullity since every step taken by the EFCC was in breach of the subsisting order of the Umuahia high court.
He also argued that assuming, without conceding, that the process leading to his on-going prosecution was okay, he said there was no nexus between him and the charges preferred against him.
He claimed that in the charge, EFCC mentioned the names of people who allegedly took public fund and diverted same to the account of Slok and that his name was not mentioned at anytime.
He said that Kalu was different from Slok, even though he admitted that the company is owned by his family. He said he gave a directive that his name should be delisted from the Board of Directors of the company as soon as he took his oath of office in 1999.
He also said that a close scrutiny of the charge showed that he was charged to court under Money Laundering Act 2004 and that the Act having been repealed by Act 2007 rendered the charge against him incompetent, saying all through his tenure, he was never indicted of any financial malfeasance.
He added that assuming monies were being transferred into the account of Slok, he said he had no such knowledge let alone authorizing it.
But EFCC said Kalu was economical with the truth.
According to Jacobs, the EFCC counsel, Kalu could not deny knowledge of the money transfer into Slok account when he was the one dispensing it.
He said Kalu’s name was on the Board of Directors of Slok till 2004 and could not say he was not part of the management of the company.
EFCC said that Kalu could not even claim that there were insufficient evidence linking him to the charge preferred against him.
His words: “He can’t say that there was insufficient evidence to establish the charge made against him.
“In the proof of evidence before this court, the accused has a pattern of laundering public fund
“What he did at the time he was in government was that immediately the monthly allocations for state government came, the Chief of Staff (Theodore Orji) would give directive to the Director of Finance to raise cheque in the name of the State House cashier, Mr. M A Udoh for whatever amount of money they intended to launder for the then governor (Orji Kalu).
“The cheque raised is taken to the bank where it is converted to cash. After this, they will now lodge the cash into the account of a private company which deals in the sale of Okrika owned by Ude who is a co-accused person in this matter, who in turn raised a draft payable into the account of Slok Nigeria Limited at the Apapa branch of Inland Bank in Lagos.
“They transferred different sums of monies totaling N5billion into Slok’s account 36 times,” he added.
Meanwhile, the fresh application by Kalu to quash the charge against him was the third since his trial began before the court.
The first two were withdrawn at advanced stages of their hearing owing to no fault of Kalu and were struck out. In essence, the court has not decided any of the applications on merit.
It would be recalled that EFCC had arraigned Kalu alongside two others before the Abuja Federal high court over money laundering involving about N3.2 billion. He had pleaded not guilty to the charge.
But as full blown trial was about commencing in the case, the trial high court judge, Justice Binta Murtala Nyarko was transferred from Abuja to Lagos.
Another judge who was recently redeployed to Abuja division of the court, Justice Adamu Bello, took over the case file but ordered a de novo trial in the matter.
Apart from preliminary applications involving bail and release of travel documents, no worthwhile progress has been made in the case.
The court has however fixed April 17 for ruling on the latest application by Kalu challenging the competence of the fresh charge preferred against him.
Kalu, Governor of Abia State between 1999 and 2007, was said to be in the habit of stealing the state fund each time the monthly allocation of the state government was released by the Federal government.He handed over powers to Chief Theodore Orji who was his Chief of Staff, and the EFCC also fingered Orji as the principal facilitator of the looting of Abia State treasury by his predecessor, Orji Kalu.
The Commission backed up its allegation yesterday by reading aloud the statement of one Christie Ohiri, a banker who worked in the fund transfer department of his bank in Umuahia wherein the bank staff indicated that the total sum allegedly looted was diverted in 36 installments.
EFCC spoke yesterday in court through its lead counsel in the case, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, in reaction to an application brought by Kalu requesting an order of the court quashing the entire charge preferred against him for several reasons.
In the application, Kalu had said that the charge against him was incompetent, claiming that it was so because there was an order from an Umuahia high court which stopped his arrest or prosecution pending determination of his substantive suit before the court.
He argued further that his arrest and his on-going trial is a nullity since every step taken by the EFCC was in breach of the subsisting order of the Umuahia high court.
He also argued that assuming, without conceding, that the process leading to his on-going prosecution was okay, he said there was no nexus between him and the charges preferred against him.
He claimed that in the charge, EFCC mentioned the names of people who allegedly took public fund and diverted same to the account of Slok and that his name was not mentioned at anytime.
He said that Kalu was different from Slok, even though he admitted that the company is owned by his family. He said he gave a directive that his name should be delisted from the Board of Directors of the company as soon as he took his oath of office in 1999.
He also said that a close scrutiny of the charge showed that he was charged to court under Money Laundering Act 2004 and that the Act having been repealed by Act 2007 rendered the charge against him incompetent, saying all through his tenure, he was never indicted of any financial malfeasance.
He added that assuming monies were being transferred into the account of Slok, he said he had no such knowledge let alone authorizing it.
But EFCC said Kalu was economical with the truth.
According to Jacobs, the EFCC counsel, Kalu could not deny knowledge of the money transfer into Slok account when he was the one dispensing it.
He said Kalu’s name was on the Board of Directors of Slok till 2004 and could not say he was not part of the management of the company.
EFCC said that Kalu could not even claim that there were insufficient evidence linking him to the charge preferred against him.
His words: “He can’t say that there was insufficient evidence to establish the charge made against him.
“In the proof of evidence before this court, the accused has a pattern of laundering public fund
“What he did at the time he was in government was that immediately the monthly allocations for state government came, the Chief of Staff (Theodore Orji) would give directive to the Director of Finance to raise cheque in the name of the State House cashier, Mr. M A Udoh for whatever amount of money they intended to launder for the then governor (Orji Kalu).
“The cheque raised is taken to the bank where it is converted to cash. After this, they will now lodge the cash into the account of a private company which deals in the sale of Okrika owned by Ude who is a co-accused person in this matter, who in turn raised a draft payable into the account of Slok Nigeria Limited at the Apapa branch of Inland Bank in Lagos.
“They transferred different sums of monies totaling N5billion into Slok’s account 36 times,” he added.
Meanwhile, the fresh application by Kalu to quash the charge against him was the third since his trial began before the court.
The first two were withdrawn at advanced stages of their hearing owing to no fault of Kalu and were struck out. In essence, the court has not decided any of the applications on merit.
It would be recalled that EFCC had arraigned Kalu alongside two others before the Abuja Federal high court over money laundering involving about N3.2 billion. He had pleaded not guilty to the charge.
But as full blown trial was about commencing in the case, the trial high court judge, Justice Binta Murtala Nyarko was transferred from Abuja to Lagos.
Another judge who was recently redeployed to Abuja division of the court, Justice Adamu Bello, took over the case file but ordered a de novo trial in the matter.
Apart from preliminary applications involving bail and release of travel documents, no worthwhile progress has been made in the case.
The court has however fixed April 17 for ruling on the latest application by Kalu challenging the competence of the fresh charge preferred against him.