reports that the ruling came six years after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) filed an 18-count charge against her and eight others over alleged fraud, kickbacks, Duty Tour Allowances, estacodes, and conference-related payments.

Justice James Omotosho, delivering judgment on separate no-case submissions filed by Oyo-Ita and her co-defendants, held that the applications were meritorious and that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case requiring the defendants to enter a defence.

The judge described the EFCC’s case as “built on speculation, suspicion, and poor investigation,” adding that it lacked credible evidential backing.

“I must say here that the case presented by the prosecution has no weight whatsoever,” he stated.

EFCC Failed To Prove Key Elements – Court

Justice Omotosho ruled that the EFCC failed to establish the essential element of a predicate offence required to sustain money laundering charges.

He explained that before such a charge can stand, the prosecution must first prove that the funds in question originated from unlawful activity.

According to him, this crucial requirement was completely absent in the case.

“The prosecution did not provide any evidence to show that the monies were derived from illegal activity,” the judge said.

He noted that simply linking payments to the Federal Ministry of Power without showing what the funds were for was not sufficient, stressing that criminal trials must be based on proof and not assumptions.

The court further held that there was no complaint from the Ministry of Power alleging illegal disbursement of funds.

Oyo-Ita Not Linked To Companies – Court

The judge also found that Oyo-Ita was neither a shareholder nor director in the companies mentioned in the charge.

He relied on testimony from EFCC investigators who admitted she had no ownership link to the firms.

Justice Omotosho held that the companies were separate legal entities and could not be automatically tied to Oyo-Ita merely because she was a signatory to some accounts.

He added that the prosecution failed to show that the contracts in question were unlawfully executed, noting that witnesses confirmed they were properly approved.

Allegations On Allowances Not Proven

On claims relating to estacodes and Duty Tour Allowances, the court held that the EFCC failed to prove that Oyo-Ita received payments for trips she did not undertake.

The judge said no evidence was presented showing specific journeys, approvals, or travel records.

He also noted that no audit queries or administrative actions were issued against her, which would ordinarily be expected if such infractions occurred.

According to him, the prosecution relied on assumptions rather than verifiable records such as memos, travel authorisations, or financial breakdowns.

“The evidence on record is completely silent on these essential particulars,” he said.

Confessional Statements Rejected

The court also rejected alleged confessional statements presented by the EFCC, ruling that they were not obtained in compliance with legal requirements.

Justice Omotosho held that the statements were taken without legal representation and without proper video recording, contrary to statutory provisions.

As a result, he expunged the statements from evidence.

Defendants Discharged And Acquitted

Relying on Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the judge ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

He subsequently upheld the no-case submissions filed by all defendants and discharged and acquitted them of the 18-count charge.

“The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof,” he ruled.

Case Background

The EFCC had in February 2020 filed charges bordering on alleged fraud, money laundering, estacodes, Duty Tour Allowances, conference fees, and kickbacks totalling ₦570 million.

Oyo-Ita and her co-defendants pleaded not guilty when arraigned in March 2020.

The prosecution called eight witnesses and tendered documents before closing its case.

However, the court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to require the defendants to enter a defence, bringing the six-year trial to an end.