toto slot

toto togel 4d

situs togel

10 situs togel terpercaya

situs togel

10 situs togel terpercaya

link togel

situs toto

situs togel terpercaya

bandar togel online

10 situs togel terpercaya

bo togel terpercaya

bo togel terpercaya

10 situs togel terpercaya

situs toto

situs togel

https://rejoasri-desa.id

https://www.eksplorasilea.com/

https://ukinvestorshow.com

https://advisorfinancialservices.com

https://milky-holmes-unit.com

RTP SLOT MAXWIN

Former Speaker, Bankole cries after acquittal in contract scam trial

3 Min Read

Dimeji Bankole

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Dimeji Bankole was acquitted by a Federal High Court judge on a 16 count charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Justice Evoh Stephen Chukwu in his judgment held that the EFCC was not able to establish a prima facie case against the former Speaker.

Bankole wept after the judgment was read.

Bankole was charged by the EFCC of inflating a contract for the supply of  two armoured Range Rover SUVs, two non-armoured Range Rover SUVs, three Mercedes Benz S600 cars, 400 units of DSTV, 400 Televisions, 800 desktop PCs, 100 Sharp copiers, and 400 HP Laser jet printers.

The Judge said the EFCC counsel led by Festus Keyamo had failed to prove its case after it called 6 witnesses that failed to implicate Bankole.

The Judge ruled, “In order to prove the case against the former Speaker, the EFCC must prove that the accused person (Bankole) colluded with the supplier or contractor to supply at inflated prices.”

“All the witnesses told the court that the procedure for the award of the contract followed due process. None of them showed that the accused person entered into a collusive agreement with the contractors or their agents.

“The accused person does not own any of the companies,” he added, citing the testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses, who told the court that investigations did not disclose that Bankole was a shareholder, director or signatory to any of the companies that benefitted from the contract.

“In the totality of the evidence of the prosecution, there is nothing to show that the accused person acted with intention to defraud – there is no evidence to show that he selected the companies that were awarded the contract.

“There is no evidence to show that any of the companies were fronting for the accused person.

“There is no evidence to show that the accused person was a director or a shareholder in any of the companies.”

Share this Article