The re-arraignment followed the withdrawal of the case by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, from the former trial judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, and the subsequent transfer of the matter to Justice James Tsoho.
Dokpesi and his firm, Daar Investment and Holdings Limited, had earlier denied the charges when they were initially arraigned before Justice Kolawole on December 9, 2015.
The judge had subsequently on December 14, 2015, granted bail to Dokpesi in the sum of N200m with two sureties in like sum and fixed Wednesday (yesterday) for the commencement of trial.
However, the trial could not begin as earlier scheduled due to the need for the matter to start afresh as a result of the transfer of the case to another judge.
Appearing before Justice Tsoho on Wednesday, Dokpesi, whose defence team is now being led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), again denied the charges as he earlier did during his initial arraignment.
The prosecution, led by Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), accused Dokepsi and Daar Investment and Holdings Limited, of receiving, N2.1bn from the Office of the National Security Adviser between October 2014 and March 19, 2015 for the PDP’s presidential media campaign in breach of provisions of the Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and the EFCC (Establishment) Act.
In the first count, the prosecution alleged that the defendants conducted “procurement fraud by means of fraudulent and corrupt act” through their receipt of the money for media campaign initiated through Daar Investment and Holding Company Limited’s account with First Bank of Nigeria Plc, thereby committing an offence contrary to section 58(4) (b) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007 and punishable under section 58(6) and (7) of the same Act.
The accused persons were also accused of entering into a “purported contract on presidential media initiative” and received the sum of N2.1bn “on the account of the purported contract without a ‘Certificate of No Objection, duly issued by the Public Procurement Bureau,” thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 16(1) (b), 4 and (5) of the PPA Act and punishable under Section 58 (c) of the same Act.
The prosecution also alleged that the defendants’ receipt of the money from the office of the NSA on the account of the “purported contract without any open competitive bidding for the said contract,” thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 16(1) (c) and (d) of the PPA and punishable under Section 58 (c) of the same Act.
Add Comment
You must log in to post a comment.