N3.2b Fraud: Uzor Kalu Urges Court To Dismiss Alleged Fraud Charge
A former Abia State Governor, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu on Wednesday asked Justice Mohammed Idris of a Federal High Court in Lagos to dismiss an alleged N3.2 billion fraud filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Kalu, who made this application in a no case submission, is arguing that the anti-graft agency had failed to link him to the offence.
Also during the proceedings, the EFCC informed the court that it has filed an amended 39 charges against Kalu.
The commission is prosecuting Kalu, his Commissioner for Finance, Udeh Jones Udeogu, and his company, Slok Nigeria Limited on an amended 34 count charge of N3.2 billion fraud.
They were alleged to have used the following banks to perpetrate the alleged fraud, Manny Bank, Spring Bank Plc,( now Heritage Bank), the defunct Standard Trust Bank, now United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) and Fin Land Bank, now First City Monument Bank (FCMB).
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Wednesday, Kalu’s lawyer, Chief Awa Kalu (SAN) told the judge that he has filed a motion for no case submission on behalf of his client.
He said the former governor has no case to answer with regard to the alleged fraud charge.
The lawyer said, “A motion for no case submission was filed on behalf of the 1st defendant (Dr. Kalu) on May 28 and it has been served on the prosecution.”
The other two defendants in the case also filed separate application for no case submission through their lawyers, Chief Solo Akuma (SAN) and K. C. Nwofo (SAN).
While the EFCC counsel, Adebisi Adeniyi, drew the court’s attention to an amended charge filed by the commission.
Adeniyi said, “We did inform the court at the last adjourned date that we want to file an amended charge. We have filed the amended charge this morning. We were also served with the defendants’ motion for no case submissions”, he said.
Following revelations by the defence lawyers that they were yet to be served with the amended charge, Adeniyi opted to serve copies of it on the defence lawyers in the face of the court.
The move was opposed to by the defence lawyers on the ground that the prosecution is only permitted by law to serve it on the defendants.
However, in a bench ruling, Justice Idris directed the service of the charge on the defendants inside the court.
Afterwards, the defence lawyers sought for an adjournment to enable them study the amended charge and come up with a decision on what to do over it.
Justice Idris later adjourned further hearing in the matter to June 13 by 12 noon.
