Joshua Dariye, a serving senator representing Plateau
Central Senatorial District and former governor of
Plateau state, was accused of embezzling N1.162
billion ecological funds belonging to his state.
He was charged to court by the anti-graft agency,
EFCC, in 2007, Premium Times reports.
NAIJ.com gathered that the trial which stalled for
over eight years following Dariye’s protracted
attempt to prevent his prosecution continued
after the Supreme Court ordered the senator to
proceed with his case in 2015.
On Tuesday, June 12, Justice Adebukola Banjoko
delivered the final judgment on the protracted
case.
Here is a detail of how the case that led to the
conviction of the former governor unfolded:
Dariye’s Defence
Starting with the issues raised by Dariye’s
counsel, Justice Banjoko said Dariye’s lawyers,
led by former Attorney General of the
Federation, Kanu Agabi, contended that the
charge against the defendant was defective for a
number of reasons.
According to Agabi, the fact that the charge sheet
against his client did not indicate that the
diverted funds were taken “dishonestly” meant
that a case of fraudulent intention could not be
proven against Dariye.
Agabi also submitted that the prosecution had a
duty to present all the participants in the said
diversion, to court as witnesses.
He further argued that failure of the prosecution
to present all the participants rendered their
evidence defective.
Agabi also submitted that the prosecution ought
to have been bound by the findings of the
Plateau State Assembly committee which found
no case against the defendant.
Similarly, Agabi said the case against his client
should have been viewed with the principle of
“estoppel” which requires that once a ruling is
delivered regarding a given issue, no other court
should commence trial on a case of similar
composition with the one already decided upon
by the sister court.
Agabi cited a previous ruling where six bankers
were tried for their alleged involvement in the
said transfer while Dariye served as governor.
He contended that since the Federal High Court
in Kaduna acquitted the bankers for lack of
evidence, the trial of Dariye on the same
diversion amounts to an abuse of court process.
According to Agabi, the fate that befell the
bankers should also be advanced on his client.
Agabi further argued that the pieces of evidence
adduced by the same prosecution in both trials
were incoherent.
EFCC’s Argument
On their part, the prosecution, led by Rotimi
Jacobs asked the court to determine whether
having recourse to the evidence adduced in
court, the prosecution was yet to prove its case
against the defendant.
Jacobs responded to Agabi’s submissions
regarding the bankers. He cited English Criminal
laws to prove that the principle of estoppel did
not apply to criminal cases.
He also argued that the shreds of evidence
presented in Dariye’s case were conclusive for
the case in which they were brought and in
compliance with section 173 of the evidence act.
Judge’s response
Justice Banjoko said the issues raised by the
defence included fundamental matters that
needed to be analysed.
She cited parts of the judgement from the
previous ruling mentioned by Agabi.
The judge said the ruling of the federal court
acquitting the bankers was premised on the fact
that the prosecution did not include the principal
actor in the case of misappropriation.
Reading through the previous judgement,
Banjoko said the failure of the EFCC to include
Dariye in the charge meant that “no iota of evidence
was adduced in court to show that the cheques (acted upon
by the bankers) were fraudulently procured.”
“I am unable to see how the disbursement has shown any
dishonest misappropriation. Did Mr Dariye misappropriate
it for himself? If so, no evidence was shown,” Banjoko
stated while reading through the previous
judgement by the federal high court judge, Liman
J.
“It is clear from the above that the facts and evidence of
misappropriation were not brought to the fore,” Banjoko
said.
She said that the decision of the federal court to
discharge the bankers was accurate except that it
was due to the absence of Dariye in that trial.
Premium Times reports that Dariye was not
included in the 2005 trial of the bankers and
their bank because he was in office as governor
of Plateau state and then enjoyed immunity from
prosecution.
Although the bankers were acquitted, the bank
was found guilty as charged.
Reacting to Agabi’s argument that the
prosecution ought to have presented same
witnesses as those adduced during the trial of
the bankers, Justice Banjoko said it is not
inconceivable to deduce that the class of
evidence to prove a case of misappropriation was
not the same as the class of evidence to prove the
offence of aiding the said diversion.
On the controversial acquitting of Dariye by the
Plateau State House of Assembly committee,
Banjoko said the committee had recognised its
inability to proceed with investigations into the
offence against Dariye following the filing of the
matter in court.
She said the committee noted that the matter had
become subjudice and was about suspending its
investigation before it dramatically announced a
decision, discharging Dariye from allegations
against him.
“That conclusion was gotten from the air,” Banjoko said.
Regarding the allegations that the statements
made by the defendant were given in duress, the
judge said the defendant’s counsel should have
raised the objection ahead of his final address to
the court.
“Learned silk ought to have advanced his objection during
the trial,” Banjoko said.
The main offence
Going into the substantive matter, Banjoko
narrated the developments that followed an
earlier investigation by Peter Clark, a detective
constable with the Metropolitan police of the
United Kingdom.
She said Clark’s investigation led to the discovery
of £816,000 pounds traced to Dariye abroad.
After a diligent investigation, Dariye was invited
for questioning, then granted bail in December
2004 with an undertaken to return to the UK for
further questions.
Despite promising the security agency that he
would return, NAIJ.com gathered that Dariye
never went back to respond to the interrogations
of the metro police. He is still being sought by
the UK authorities.
Shortly after Dariye left office in 2007, his trial in
Nigeria began in earnest and prevented the
defendant’s extradition to the UK.
In Nigeria, Dariye was accused of distributing the
Plateau State ecological funds to various groups,
including the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The diverted funds were transferred to a secret
account with the name Ebenezer Rethnam,
domiciled with a defunct bank. Although the said
account was reportedly opened secretly and
managed with a waiver that prevented its owner
from submitting an identification photograph,
Justice Banjoko said the evidence in court
indicates clearly that Ebenezer Rethnam and
Dariye were the same.
She mentioned some of the diverted funds
channeled through the bank from the Plateau
state account at the CBN.
Banjoko noted the submissions of a defence
witness who confirmed part of the money was
diverted to the PDP.
She condemned the submissions of the defence
witness who told the court that he viewed no
wrong in Dariye’s disbursement of public funds
to the PDP, since “his party was the one in
power.”
“From his statement, it shows that he has no knowledge of
party funds of even his own party. Funds of Plateau state
government and that of the PDP are exclusive. They never
mix. His submission is quite disturbing and shocking and is
an embarrassment to the party,” Banjoko said.
After listing an array of such dubious
disbursement of funds, Banjoko said Dariye
should have even attempted to explain his
actions by entering the witness box.
“It is expected that he should have entered the witness box
and explain why the disbursements were made. He said
nothing.”
The historic sentence; the verdict
“In the absence of concrete evidence justifying these
payments, it can safely be described as misappropriation,”
Banjoko said.
Justice Banjoko found Dariye guilty of 15 out of
the 23-count charge brought against him.
Thus, Dariye was convicted for two main
categories of offences, namely criminal breach of
trust which attracts a two-year sentence for each
affected count and criminal misappropriation
which has a penalty of 14 years.
The sentences are to run concurrently which
means he will spend a maximum of 14 years in
jails.
Drama as Dariye interrupts his lawyer, begs for mercy
Shortly before the verdict was read, Dariye’s
lawyer, Paul Erokoro, described his client’s
actions as the product of ignorance.
Erokoro blamed the military system and the bank
for the actions of his client.
According to Erokoro, Dariye who is a chartered
accountant was misguided when he approached
the bank for financial assistance.
Responding, Jacobs, EFCC’s lawyer, drew the
attention of the court to the many years of legal
battle embarked upon by the defendant.
As he was speaking, Dariye, in a dramatic move,
suddenly stood up and asked the prosecution
lawyer to be merciful.
“Be merciful. You are a Christian, your name is Jacob,” he
said
The judge noted the efforts of Erokoro but added
that “there should not be compromise in corruption.
Corruption is corruption.”
