Court Sentences Forner NIMASA DG, Omatseye to 5 Years Imprisonment over N1.5bn Fraud

 

 A former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Raymond Omatseye, has been convicted over a N1.5 billion contract scam during his tenure.

Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court Lagos Friday, who convicted Omatseye, subsequently sentenced him to 5 years in prison.

Omatseye was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 27-count charge bordering on bid rigging and contract splitting.

The court said he was found guilty in counts 1-20, 23, 24 and 26, while he was freed on counts 21, 22, and 27.

He was sentenced to 5 years on each of the counts without an option of fine.

Omatseye was charged before the court by the EFCC on a 27 count charge bordering on bid rigging and contract splitting.

At the last adjourned date on March 14, counsels representing the prosecution and defence had both adopted their final written addresses in court.

During the trial of the criminal case, the prosecutor, Godwin Obla (SAN) had urged the court to hold that the case of the prosecution was “as clear as daylight, and had also been proven beyond reasonable doubt’’. Obla (SAN), had submitted that the facts of the case spoke volumes.

While argued that the accused in exhibit Pd 1 and 2 clearly articulated his threshold for goods as not exceeding N2. 5 million and for works as not exceeding N5 million.

he prosecutor had informed the court that count 25 of the charge which dealt on threshold was straightforward, adding that sufficient evidence had been adduced to show that the accused awarded contracts above thresholds.

He had therefore urged the court to so hold, and convict the accused accordingly. But lawyer to the accused, Mr Edoka Onyeke, had in his address urged the court to discountenance the arguments of prosecution and dismiss the charge against his client. Onyeke had argued that the prosecution had not been able to proof its case beyond reasonable doubt. He had informed the court that out of the 27-count-charge against client, 25 dealt strictly with the issue of approval of contract above the threshold while the remaining two were on bid rigging.

He also stated that the prosecution did not prove that exhibit PD 16, which it relied on in dealing with the issue of threshold, got to NIMASA at the time the contracts were awarded. He had therefore urged the court to discharge his client.

 

Author: News Editor

3416 stories / Browse all stories

Related Stories »

Provide your email below, and we will notify you the latest news freely.

sjdating    

calendar »