EFCC rearraigns Nadabo Energy chief Abubakar Peters, over N1.4bn oil fraud

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has rearraigned the CEO of Nadabo Energy, Abubakar Peters, at the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja over an alleged N1.4 billion oil subsidy fraud.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

According to a statement by EFCC spokesperson Dele Oyewale on Tuesday, Mr Peters appeared before trial judge Ismail Ijelu.

The statement noted that Mr Peters and his company previously stood trial before another judge, C.A. Balogun of the same court.

However, the case was reassigned to Mr Ijelu following Mr Balogun’s retirement.

The defendants are facing 27 counts of using forged documents to obtain N1.5 billion (N1,464,961,978.24) from the federal government under the oil subsidy scheme.

In one of the counts, the EFCC alleged that Nadabo Energy Limited and Mr Peters, on or about 3 April 2012 in Lagos, fraudulently obtained N978,401,732.09 from the federal government with the intent to defraud.

The commission further accused the defendants of falsely claiming the amount represented subsidy payments for the importation of 19,488,992 litres of petrol purportedly purchased from Ashland SA, Geneva, Switzerland.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

It added that the product was transported via MT American Express (mother vessel) and MT St. Vanessa (daughter vessel).

However, EFCC maintained that only 6,505,140.04 litres were actually imported through MT Evridiki (mother vessel) and MT St. Vanessa (daughter vessel).

In another count, the EFCC stated that the defendants forged a document titled Certificate of Marine Insurance No. 0047851, purportedly issued by Staco Insurance Plc, which was allegedly used to facilitate the fraudulent obtaining of funds under the Petroleum Support Fund (PSF).

Mr Peters and his company pleaded “not guilty” to the charges.

Following the plea, prosecution lawyer S.K. Atteh requested a trial date and prayed the court to remand the defendant in a correctional facility.

However, defence lawyer E.O. Isiramen opposed the application, noting that the defendant had been granted bail since 19 December 2012 and had complied with all bail conditions without jumping bail.

Ruling on the application, Mr Ijelu ordered that the defendant should continue on his existing bail.

The court also directed the sureties to appear on the next adjourned date to reaffirm their undertakings and asked the defence counsel to sign an undertaking to produce the defendant in court.

The matter was adjourned until 19, 20 and 21 May for the commencement of the trial.

Background

PREMIUM TIMES had reported that the matter stemmed from long-running allegations of fraud linked to Nigeria’s fuel subsidy regime, an area that has faced extensive scrutiny over suspected abuse and financial irregularities.

Mr Peters was initially arraigned on 10 December 2012 before the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja on on the same set of charges lleged fuel subsidy fraud.

The EFCC alleged that Nadabo Energy Limited fraudulently obtained approximately N1.46 billion from the Federal Government by submitting inflated subsidy claims for the importation of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS).

According to the prosecution, the company claimed it imported about 19.4 million litres of petrol through structured shipping arrangements involving mother and daughter vessels.

However, EFCC investigations indicated that only about 6.5 million litres were actually imported, revealing a discrepancy between declared and actual volumes.

During trial proceedings, EFCC investigators and witnesses, including former EFCC Chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa, testified that documentary and financial records obtained from regulatory agencies, banks, and inspection bodies showed inconsistencies in the volumes declared by the company.

Evidence presented in court suggested that subsidy payments were made based on inflated import figures. Regulatory agencies and independent inspectors reportedly provided data that conflicted with the company’s submissions.

Further allegations centred on the authenticity of supporting documents submitted by the defendants.

Representatives of Staco Insurance Plc testified that the Marine Insurance Certificate tendered in evidence did not originate from their records, raising concerns of forgery.

The defence pleaded not guilty and challenged the prosecution’s case at various stages, raising procedural objections, including delays in obtaining certified records needed for cross-examination.

The prosecution maintained that all necessary documents had been provided and that such requests were intended to delay proceedings.

The trial has undergone several procedural stages, including interlocutory appeals. In February 2018, the Court of Appeal in Lagos, struck out an appeal filed by the defendant.

It ruled that it was incompetent and allowed the trial at the lower court to proceed.

READ ALSO: EFCC stopped contractor from installing fake transmission lines – Olukoyede

At one point during the proceedings, the defence lawyer Emefo Etudo applied to withdraw from the case, citing concerns that the defendant was allegedly attempting to frustrate the trial and evade justice.

The defence lawyer, in an affidavit, also told the court he urged his client to pay back the money upon realising that he had defrauded the federal government.

He urged the court to permit him to withdraw from the case, saying “the defendant is a threat to national security and will abscond if he continues on the bail he was granted by the court.”

Mr Atteh did not oppose the prayers of Mr Etudo.

Mr Balogun granted the defence lawyer leave to withdraw from the case based on the serious allegations levelled against his client.

Following the withdrawal, the court ordered the defendant to be remanded in custody at that stage of the proceedings.

Subsequently, the defendant was granted bail, which he has maintained since December 2012.

The court has consistently upheld the bail, requiring sureties to reaffirm their undertakings and ensuring the defendant’s continued presence in court.