The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has conceded it has no evidence to secure the conviction of key persons and entities facing trial over the Malabu saga, after spending yearsband huge public resources pushing the case at a High Court in Abuja.
It marks a defining juncture in a trial that set out to seek ‘justice’ for Nigeria over the country’s alleged losses in the controversial OPL 245 transaction.
The concession came after the anti-graft agency called 10 witnesses to prove its case of alleged fraud, bribery and corruption against the defendants in a high-profile trial that has two multinational oil companies as defendants.
The case had been going on for over three years at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja. The prosecution closed its case on 19 October 2023, after calling 10 witnesses.
The anti-graft agency dropped the bombshell of lacking sufficient evidence against key defendants in the case in a fresh court filing it submitted to the trial court on 20 December 2023, in response to a “no-case submission” filed by the defendants.
The defendants, with the no-case submission filing, requested the court to terminate the trial midway due to the insufficient evidence, they claimed the prosecution adduced to prove its case.
The case has been one of Nigeria’s few legal efforts at home to hold some individuals and corporations accountable in a decades-long saga the EFCC claimed denied the country of revenue from the lucrative oil block, OPL 245.
Malabu, a firm incorporated in Nigeria for the purpose of acquiring the OPL 245 asset, was first awarded the oil assets under controversial circumstances in 1998. In a chain of convoluted back-and-forth events, the assets were later transferred to oil giants, Shell and Eni, following a 2011 agreement backed with payments of $1.1 billion, a chunk of which prosecutors alleged was passed to some Nigerian officials as bribes.
The EFCC had alleged that Nigeria was shortchanged in the agreement leading to the transfer of the asset to Shell and Eni despite the huge revenue potentials of the block.
The then administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, which came on board in 2015, touted the case as one of the worst instances of corruption under previous governments, and vowed to bring perpetrators to justice. Mr Jonathan and his former aides denied wrongdoing, saying the agreement was packaged in the country’s best interest.
For years, the Nigerian government struggled to bring back from exile Mohammed Adoke, who was the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) when the deal on the OPL 245 was struck in 2011, to account for his roles in the matter. Mr Adoke returned to Nigeria in December 2019 and was immediately arrested by the Nigerian authorities.
In January 2020, the federal government, through the EFCC, filed charges, including the one in question, against various parties suspected to be involved in hammering out the agreement.
Among the principal defendants charged in the case was Mr Adoke, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and former AGF, who was accused of receiving a dollar equivalent of N300 million as gratification to facilitate and negotiate the resolution leading to the 2011 settlement agreement against Nigeria’s interests.
They also include the Nigerian subsidiaries of Eni and Shell, who were ceded the ownership of the oil block after paying $1.1 billion based on the 2011 agreement. The firms are Eni’s Nigeria Agip Exploration Limited, and Shell subsidiaries – Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited and Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Nigeria Limited.
Also charged in the case was Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, which was in 1998 allocated the OPL 245 oil block, by the Sani Abacha regime’s Minister of Petroleum, Dauzia Loya Etete, better known as Dan Etete.
The defendants also include Aliyu Abubakar, a businessman accused of serving as a middleman for the distribution of bribes concerning the transaction.
Another of the defendants is Rasky Gbinigie, accused of committing sundry offences, including document falsification aimed at fraudulent alteration of ownership and structures of the shares of Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, and fraudulent conversion of funds in the company’s account, offences which he allegedly committed in conspiracy with others. Mr Gbinigie was charged alone in 35 out of the 40 counts.
Also charged along with them is Malabu itself, a firm which has been at the centre of the controversy since 1998.
