CAPT. Ezekiel Bala Agaba (Appellant) And Federal Republic Of Nigeria (Respondent)

Facts

The Appellant was charged before the Federal High Court, Lagos, for money laundering via criminal breach of trust (a predicate offence with no force of law in Lagos State, but applicable under the Penal Code). At the end of the trial, the court convicted him and he was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, resulting into a concurrent decision of the courts below.

Displeased with the decision of the court below, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

 Issues for Determination:

The Appellant formulated four issues in his brief of argument, while the Respondent raised two issues for determination. The Supreme Court determined the appeal on the four issues of the Appellant, thus:

1. WHETHER the affirmation by the court below of the Appellant’s conviction for the offence of Money Laundering via Criminal Breach of Trust, a predicate offence under the Panel Code, with no force of law in Lagos State, constituted a violation of the Appellant’s Constitutional right, as enshrined under Section 36(8) & (12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)?
2. WHETHER the application by the court below of the Ejusdem Generis Rule to interpret and construct the provisions of Section 15(6) of the Money Laundering Act, in affirming the conviction of the Appellant, did not amount to a violation of Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), on the powers of each State of the Federation to make laws on what constitutes an offence in their respective States.
3. WHETHER the court below having held that it had the power to evaluate the documentary evidence adduced at the trial court, properly exercised its power to evaluate the documentary evidence adduced by the Appellant in defence of the allegation of money laundering made against him in the 7- Count Amended Charge?
4. WHETHER the affirmation of the Appellant’s conviction by the court below for the offences of conversion and money laundering, was not reached per incuriam, in view of the fact that the Appellant was never charged and/or convicted for the commission of the offence of money laundering via the predicate offence of conversion, affirmed by the court below?

Arguments

On issues one and two, the Appellant contended that the phrase “or any other criminal act specified in this Act or any other law in Nigeria” in Section 15(6) of the Money Laundering Act, 2011, refers to criminal acts specified in the law of the relevant State where the money laundering trial is taking place, and not the law of any other State. Counsel argued that the offence of criminal breach of trust, for which the Appellant was charged, is not an offence in Lagos State, where the trial at the Federal High Court took place, since criminal breach of trust is an offence established under the Penal Code, which is not applicable in Lagos. Counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal erred in convicting the Appellant for an offence unknown to Lagos State, thereby violating Sections 36(8) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). In response, the Respondent argued that the Money Laundering Act vests the trial court with power to try money laundering even where the predicate offence was committed in any State and under any law in Nigeria, provided the money was derived from an act that constitutes an offence under any law in Nigeria. Having failed to show that criminal breach of trust is not an offence, or that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, counsel urged the court to discountenance the arguments of the Appellant on the issues.