BREAKING: Trump fires Attorney General Pam Bondi amid rising tensions over Justice Department

Follow Us: Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube
LATEST SCORES:
Loading live scores...
Metro

Alleged N6bn Fraud; Court Orders EFCC To Serve Sylva By Substituted Means

The Federal High Court in Abuja has directed the EFCC to serve former Gov. Timipre Sylva of Bayelsa with summons by substituted means.

The court gave the order in Abuja on Monday following the EFCC’s request.

EFCChad on Feb. 24, dragged Sylva to court on alleged misappropriation of N6.46 billion state funds.

Justice Adamu Bello gave the order in a ruling on an exparte motion filed by Mr Festus Keyamo, counsel to the prosecutor.

“The application is granted.

“So, the prosecutor is now authorised to either serve the accused person by pasting the service on the gate of his house at No 3 River Niger Street, Maitama, Abuja or through publication in not less than two national dailies.”

The prosecutor had sought the order of the court to allow it to serve Sylva the summons by substituted means “in view of his evasive nature.”

The anti-graft agency, in suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/23/2012, claimed that Sylva and others now at large, committed the offence between October 2009 and February 2010.

The former governor and others now at large, were accused of fraudulently obtaining N4 billion loans from the Union Bank.

The loans were allegedly obtained under the guise of using it to augment workers’ salaries.

The EFCC also alleged that the accused had in the same period, converted properties and resources of the Bayelsa Government amounting to N2 billion to personal use.

They were also alleged to have on Jan. 22, 2010, converted N380 million worth of government property through a Fin Bank account No. 221433478108 belonging to one Habibu Sani Maigida, a Bureau De Change Operator.

The EFCC further said that Sylva and his accomplices, had on Feb. 5, 2010, converted N50 million of the state’s funds through a First Bank Account No. 6152030001946 of Enson Benmer Limited.

The anti-graft agency had said the offences contravened the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition Act) 2004.

Comments