The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, on Monday, December 7,
ordered Yanaty Petrochemical Limited, an oil marketing company, to submit
itself for investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFFC,
over an alleged N1, 840, 768, 720 petroleum subsidy fraud.
The EFCC
had dragged the defendant before the appellate court to set aside the judgment
of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that ALL
investigations into the alleged petroleum subsidy fraud against the defendant
had been concluded.
Delivering
the unanimous ruling, Justice E. J. Ekanem said Justice Ademola’s judgment was
an undue interference with the statutory power of the EFCC which basic
function, among others, is to investigate economic and financial crimes.
Justice
Ekanem further held that the EFCC had a measure of discretion ‘‘to determine
whether an investigation should continue, has been concluded or be re-opened.’’
Yanaty’s
Managing Director, Elias Adeojo, was given approval by the Petroleum Products
Pricing Regulatory Agency, PPRA to import 30,000 tons of premium motor spirit,
PMS under the Petroleum Support Scheme in the first quarter of 2011.
The
defendant claimed he imported 31, 256 .992 metric tons equivalent to 42, 171,
630 million litres in March, 2011 via MT Beaver.
Yanaty
purportedly discharged the product at Lister Oil Jetty, Lagos, which is managed
by Oando Marketing Plc.
As
a result, Yanaty allegedly received the sum of N2, 731, 942, 103.73 as subsidy
for purportedly discharging 42, 773, 279 million litres of PMS.
However,
during investigation, Oando, operator of Lister oil jetty, disclosed that MT
Beaver discharged only 10, 187.353 metric tons, which is equivalent to
13, 952.926 million litres) of PMS for Yanaty, as opposed to 31, 256.992 it
claimed to have discharged.
Yanaty,
therefore, allegedly received the sum of N1, 840,768,720(One Billion Eight
Hundred and Forty Million, Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight Thousand, Seven
Hundred and Twenty Naira) as unearned subsidy from the Federal Government.
Counsel
to the defendant, Michael Anache, had filed a case against the PPRA and its
Executive Secretary before Justice A. R. Muhammed of the Federal High Court,
Abuja, seeking a declaration that all investigations against them by law
enforcement agencies had been concluded.
Though
the EFCC was not joined in the suit before Justice Muhammed, judgment was given
in favour of Yanaty.
Also, in
an effort to prevent further investigation into its activities, Yanaty,
thereafter, filed another case against the EFCC before Justice Adeniyi Ademola
of the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking an interpretation of the judgment
delivered by Justice Muhammed.
It urged
Justice Ademola to rely on the earlier judgment delivered by Justice Muhammed
declaring that all investigations against it( Yanaty) had been concluded.
However,
while moving his plea at the last sitting, counsel to EFCC, Sylvanus Tahir,
told the court that EFCC was not joined in the first suit before Justice
Muhammed.
Reacting to today’s
ruling, Tahir further said: ‘‘The ruling today is a
vindication of our appeal against the judgment of the lower court, which
made an order restraining EFCC from further investigation and interrogation of
Yanaty and its officials on the grounds that investigation against the company
had been concluded.
‘‘We
insisted that investigation was ongoing because the case is clear. EFCC started
investigation against Yanaty in February, 2012. But while it was subsisting,
they surreptitiously filed a case against the PPRA and its former executive
secretary, without joining EFCC. The core issue in that case was whether the
Advance Payment Guarantee, APG, issued by Sterling Bank Plc in favour of PPRA
still subsisted or had expired. It has nothing to do with the fact that
they had been investigated or that the issue had been concluded. Two agencies
of government are primarily charged with this investigation: EFCC and the
Special Fraud Unit. Yes, the House of Representatives Adhoc Committee on
Petroleum (downstream) as well as the Aig- Imokhoude-Led Committee did some
fact-finding investigations. But, at the end of their investigations, they
turned in their reports to EFCC for further investigation and that was
what EFCC was on before they went to court.
No comments:
Post a Comment