$1.630m: FG urges A’Court to convict Emirates Airlines, 10 others

It is asking the Court of Appeal not only to invalidate the acquittal of Emirates Airlines and 10 others but convict them for the missing $1, 630, 000 as charged. Besides, the federal government in a notice of appeal dated May 16 asked the appellate court to allow and invalidate the discharge and acquittal order granted by Justice Idris in favour of Emirates Airlines and 10 others. The government had initiated a criminal charge against the Airlines before the Federal High Court following an alleged theft of four bags containing the $1.630 million. Also charged before the court were Pathfinder International Limited, Nigeria Aviation Handling Co. Plc., Abayomi Adekanbi Abiola, Isiaka Adegoke Adedeji, Awonubi Abayomi and George Ikpekhia. Their offence was “that you, Emirates Airlines, Pathfinders International Limited, Nigerian Aviation Handling Company Plc., Abayomi Adekanbi Abiola, Isiaka Adegoke Adedeji, Awonubi Abayomi, George Ipekhia and others now at large on or about the 19th day of December, 2007 at Murtala Mohammed Airport, Ikeja within the jurisdiction of this honourable court conspired among yourselves to commit a felony to wit: stealing four bags with tag number EK 428682, EK 428583, EK 650162, EK 650161, tagged and collected by you from Prince Chu Ikem Orji, one of which contained the sum of $1,630,000 on the promise of keeping them intact for onward delivery to him at Guangzhou China and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 516 of the criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.” But all were, however, discharged and acquitted on April 10 by Justice Idris, who described the conspiracy offence slammed on the defendants as a fairy tale, insisting that there was no evidence suggesting such collusion. According to the judge, the totality of the evidence of the prosecution did not support the offence of conspiracy, saying that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. Dissatisfied, the federal government which prosecuted the accused persons before the lower court, last week headed for the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. In a notice of appeal, dated May 16, the federal government formulated 14 grounds of appeal on why the appellate court must invalidate the discharge and acquittal verdict granted in favour of Emirates Airlines. It particularly said that Justice Mohammed Idris erred in law by not attaching any evidential value to exhibit A2 “by holding thus: I find that exhibits A1 and A2 are unsigned.” According to the federal government, Justice Idris had refused and/ or failed to be guided by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Global Soap and Detergent Ltd, .v. NAFDAC (2011) LPELR-CA/IL/13/2007, where the court held that a court could take judicial notice and look at documents including unsigned ones to deliver justice. It said: “The learned trial judge erred in law by deliberately ignoring and/or overruling the decision of the Court of Appeal in Yusuf. v. State (2012) ALL FWLR, Pt. 641, P.1478, @P.1478, @P. 1503, Paras A-B, E-G. “Also, Justice Idris erred in law when he held that by virtue of exhibit A contradicting exhibits A3, A5, E, E1 and E1, the missing bags containing the sum of $1, 630, 000, samples of goods and valuable documents belonging to the PW3, left Nigeria as against the charge before the court. “The judge erred in law by holding that ownership of the money, an essential ingredient of the offence of stealing was not proved by failure to call other contributors and the business partner of PW3 thereby leaving the issue of the missing luggage unattended to. “The learned trial judge erred in law by holding that the PW3 ought to disclose that he had the sum of $1, 630, 000 on him at the earliest opportunity in exhibit F1. The learned judge also erred in law when he held that the counts on the offences of willful destruction of evidence were inelegantly drafted and as such not proved. “The trial court narrowly restricted its findings to whether the sum of $1, 630, 000 was stolen but forgot to address the issue of the missing bags which contained valuable documents and samples of goods the PW3 wanted to go and buy in China which were capable of being stolen; which exhibit B4 demonstrated that they were intact and would be produced from wherever they were. “The learned trial judge erred in law by stating that the 3rd and 6th respondents were not bound to report an international transfer of money in excess of $10, 000 when they were not charged in counts 10 and 11 of the amended charge.” Specifically, the federal government said that Justice Idris erred in law when it held that the businessman, Prince Chu Ikem Orji and PW1 failed to link Nigeria Aviation Handling Co. Plc. and Awonubi Abayomi (3rd and 6th respondents) to the commission of the crimes with which they were charged on the grounds that they were not at the airport on December 19, 2007 by ignoring issues for determination as raised by the appellant against them. The particulars of error, it said occurred when Orji gave evidence that Nigeria Aviation Handling Co. Plc.’s agents , who were at the scene of incident on December 19, 2007, profiled and confirmed contents of his two “hand-held luggage’ as they were handed over to them even though they were not challenged by Nigeria Aviation Handling Co. Plc. and Abayomi. The federal government said: “The 6th respondent, Abayomi claimed he was not at the scene of the crime in exhibit B2, his extra-judicial statement but went ahead to raise the defence of alibi for the first time in his viva voce evidence in court that he was with his family at 26, Ogunlami Street, Surulere, Lagos which was not contained in his statement to the police. “The trial court erred in law by ignoring the testimony of PW1, the investigating Police Officer by holding that he did not investigate the accounts of Emirates Airlines and as such the prosecution’s case has fallen short of the standard required of the prosecution by law. The evidence of the PW1 was intact all through and unshaken by cross examination and same was ignored by the court.” Although no date has been fixed for the appeal, the federal government is seeking an order not only to allow and uphold the appeal but invalidate the discharge and acquittal granted by the lower court in favour of Emirates Airlines. “At the hearing of this appeal, the appellant will urge this honourable court to make an order allowing and upholding this appeal and an order upturning the discharge and acquittal of the respondents by the trial court and accordingly convicting them as per the charge,” it said.]]>