A witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Emmanuel Adide, has declared in court that the Commission is not a debt recovery agency.
Adide, an EFCC operative, who was testifying under cross-examination, told a Lagos State High Court that the anti-graft agency was not requested by a Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ugbebor, to recover the sum of N152 million allegedly paid for two luxury flats developed by Oak Homes Limited.
He testified while giving evidence in a suit numbered LD/4471LM/2023, filed by property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his firm, Oak Homes Limited, against Ugbebor (first defendant) over alleged trespass on two second-floor apartments located at No. 14A Musa Yar’Adua Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.
He further told the court that when the claimant agreed to refund the money, there was no discussion or understanding that the flats would be sold to facilitate the repayment.
Responding to questions on whether the EFCC directed the claimant to refund the money, Adide explained that the discussions formed part of the commission’s internal processes.
However, he said it was unclear at the time whether disposal of the flats would be required to effect the refund, adding that compelling the sale of property in such circumstances would amount to improper practice.
He further explained that once allegations of fraud arise, the EFCC’s standard procedure is to investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, recover funds connected to criminal conduct as part of its operational mandate.
Adide told the court that the petition submitted to the EFCC alleged criminal breach of trust and obtaining money by false pretence, which justified the commission’s investigation.
However, he said the investigation later revealed that the dispute was civil in nature.
“As a result, the claimant was contacted and asked to retrieve the bank draft earlier submitted to the EFCC,” he said.
The witness confirmed that Olusanya, the Managing Director of Oak Homes Limited, was detained when he first visited the EFCC office in Abuja.
He also confirmed that Olusanya never denied that a transaction occurred between him and Ugbebor. “He did not deny it, my lord,” Adide said.
When asked whether the refund arrangement was reached while Olusanya was in detention, the witness answered in the negative, adding that Olusanya was already on bail when he made the refund.
He said the claimant paid the money in instalments but could not recall the number of tranches. He confirmed that Olusanya submitted three bank drafts to the EFCC totaling N102 million.
Earlier in the proceedings, counsel to Ugbebor, I.B. Mamood, informed the court that the defence had decided not to call any further witnesses.
“Upon careful review of our case, we have resolved not to call additional witnesses. We are therefore closing our case,” he said.
Following this, the EFCC, listed as the second defendant, opened its defence. Its lawyer, M.A. Shehu, called Adide as a witness and adopted his witness statement on oath.
The EFCC also tendered documents, including the petition, extra-judicial statements, and a letter. Justice George admitted the documents in evidence and marked them as Exhibits 2DW1, 2DW2, and 2DW3, respectively.
The court also admitted Adide’s witness statement on oath dated January 17, 2024, as evidence.
During cross-examination by lead counsel to the first defendant, Nasiru Salau, Adide confirmed that there was no written request from Ugbebor asking the EFCC to recover the money.
