Alleged N8.5bn Fraud: EFCC Tenders More Evidence Against Ex-NIMASA DG

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has presented additional evidence in the ongoing trial of former Director-General, DG, of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, NIMASA, for an alleged N8.5billion fraud.

The trial of the ex-DG, Patrick Akpobolokemi, alongside three others, before Justice Ayokunle Faaji of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos continued yesterday, 12 July, with the anti-graft agency presenting its sixth witness.

TheFact Nigeria learns that Akpobolokemi is standing trial alongside Major-General Emmanuel Atewe (rtd), a former Commander of the Joint Military Task Force Operation Pulo Shield, and two other staff of the agency, Kime Engonzu and Josphine Otuaga, for an amended 22-count charge bordering on money laundering.

According to the charge read out to the defendants, Akpobolokemi, Major General Emmanuel Atewe, Kime Engozu, and Josphine Otuaga, sometime in 2014, in Lagos, conspired and converted N8,537,586,798.58 belonging to NIMASA, thereby running foul of Section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2012 and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act.

The defendants had pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, thus prompting the commencement of their trial.

At the resumed sitting yesterday, the prosecuting counsel, Suleiman Suleiman, presented the sixth prosecution witness, in the person of Benedict Agweyi, a Forensic Documents Examiner and the Commission’s acting Director of Forensics.

Agweyi told the Court that he received a letter of request from the office of the Deputy Director of Operations, EFCC, Lagos Office on April 25, 2016, for forensic examination, comparison and report, of some documents.

According to him, “There were two categories of documents attached, including disputed documents marked X1 to X12, and known specimen handwriting and signatures marked as A1 to A8; B1 to B6, and C1 to C13.

“They were for me to determine whether or not the known specimens were the ones on A1 to A8, B1 to B6 and C1 to C13.”

Agweyi disclosed that in forensically analysing the documents, he used three methodologies bearing in mind three principles in signature analysis that guided the analysis of this nature.

According to him, no two writers share the same unique combination of handwriting characteristics.

He further told the court that, “On the basis of this, I used the first methodology, which was a simulation of the various categories of writings, using a pencil, a handheld magnifier, a piece of paper and my naked eyes.

“This methodology enabled me to identify certain characteristics among which include the commencement and terminal style of the writings; the letter forms and structural forms of the writings and the connecting strokes, among others”.

The second methodology, Agweyi said, was a stereo-microscopic analysis using a Leica stereo microscope, which enabled him to analyse the different categories of writings under magnification ranging from the original sizes to over 20 times the original sizes of the writings.

He said this enabled him to identify microscopic features including line formation, the direction of pen movement, and the speed of the writing in absence of tremor among others.

Testifying further, he told the Court that he used a third methodology, which was a video spectra comparative analysis with the aid of the VSC 5000.

“This enabled me to further compare the disputed and known specimen handwritings under magnification. It enabled me identify the existence or non-existence of characteristics that are similar or otherwise.”

When asked by Suleiman what he made out of his analysis, he said, “On the conclusion of my analysis, I reduced my findings into a report dated 7 May, 2016 and my opinion was to the effect that the authors of the known specimens and signatures on the documents marked A1 to A8 and B1 to B6 also made the signatures on the disputed documents marked X1 to X12 and the authors of the known specimen and handwriting marked C1 to C13 also made the handwriting and signatures marked X1 to X10.”

He, thereafter, identified his report, which was already before the Court as Exhibit G series.

“I have no personal interest in this matter; and during the analysis, I never knew the names of those involved other than what was on the face of the documents,” he said.

The trial continues today, 13 July, 2021.

Previous articleCOAS Will Keep Promise To Reward Gallantry – Theatre Commander
Next articleGov. Yahaya Bello Wants NAF Base In Kogi State

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.