EFCC office
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeal, Lagos seeking the setting aside of the judgment of Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos acquitting and discharging a former Executive Director of Projects at the Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC.
Engr. Tuoyo Omatsuli alongside Francis Momoh, Don Parker Properties Limited and Building Associates Limited are being prosecuted over an alleged ₦3.6 billion fraud.
In a Notice of Appeal filed on Thursday, April 9, 2026, the EFCC, through its counsel, Ekene Iheanacho, SAN, faulted the judgment of the trial court and based its appeal at the Court of Appeal on seven grounds. The Commission is also seeking reliefs set out in the Appeal.
Justice Osiagor on March 3, 2026 cleared all the four defendants of money laundering allegations stating that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish the offences contained in the 46-count charge filed against them by the EFCC, despite the volume of evidence presented during the retrial, including testimonies from 16 witnesses and 34 exhibits.
The 1st defendant had earlier been acquitted in 2020, at No- case submission while the court held that the other defendants alleged to have assisted him in laundering the funds were directed to enter their defences.
This prompted the EFCC to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the appellate court set aside the ruling of the trial court. The court also dismissed the appeal of the other defendants who had also appealed against the ruling of the trial court which held that they had cases to answer.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the payment of the sum of N3, 645, 000,000.00 from Prosecuting Witness 4, PW4, who was a contractor to NDDC to the 1st defendant, Omatsuli, through his friend’s company, the Building Associates Ltd, the 4th defendant, amounted to an act of gratification for which the defendants needed to make explanations.
The court made references to the provisions of Section 8, 17, 19 of the ICPC Act and the 5th schedule to the Constitution.
The Notice of Appeal filed by the Commission alleged that the new trial Judge, Justice Osiagor who took over the proceeding following the retirement of the former trial Judge, Justice Saidu, relied on the record of the previous trial but disregarded the specific findings made by the Court of Appeal on the testimony of the prosecution witness.
It is the position of the Commission in its Notice of Appeal that the trial Judge, Osiagor did not properly evaluate the evidence before it.
That the trial judge misconceived the law and the evidence lead by both PW4 and PW15 during trial which showed that PW15 who was also a director at NDDC approached PW4 , a contractor to the Commission, with the request to appreciate the members of the Board whenever PW4 was paid his fees by the Board so as to enable them sought out restive youths in the Niger Delta area.
Accordingly , PW4 paid money to members of the Board including the 1st defendant who received his own through the 4th defendant’s bank account.
The 1st defendant who was also a signatory to the account of NDDC upon receipt of the funds, applied most of the funds in the purchase of choice properties in Lagos in the name of the 2nd defendant which is his private company.
That the N3.6bn was never used for any youth- related matters. Infact, the properties acquired with the funds have been forfeited in a Non-conviction based asset forfeiture on the strength of the same evidence adduced during trial.
That the forfeiture was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the civil case.
The Commission further contends that the trial Judge did not make reference to any of the anti corruption legislations like the ICPC Act, 5th Schedule to the Constitution, CCB Act in determining whether the money paid was proceeds of unlawful act.
That the trial judge failed to appreciate the case of the prosecution on the nature of the gratuitous payment received by the 1st defendant.
It was also part of the grouse of the Commission that evidence was led by PW4 and PW13 with documents in support, which showed that in order to cover up the illicit act, the 1st defendant withdrew as a director in the 2nd defendant and pleaded with PW4 to issue a sub contract document to cover the N3.6bn payment.
It stated that these pieces of evidence were neither contradicted as found by the Court of Appeal but the trial Judge disregarded those findings which were commended to the court.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the Appeal.
