A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a document presented by businessman Akintoye Akindele as part of his defence in an ongoing fraud case involving $35 million linked to the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB). The court ruled that the document was inadmissible because it was not properly certified.
Justice Akpan Ekerete delivered the ruling after considering arguments from both the defence and the prosecution. He held that the document, being a photocopy of a public record, failed to meet the legal requirements for admissibility under Nigerian law.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Akindele alongside two companies allegedly connected to him. They are accused of involvement in the unlawful conversion of $35 million belonging to the NCDMB.
According to the charges, the funds were part of an investment made by NCDMB Capacity Development Intervention Company Ltd. The money was reportedly allocated to Atlantic International Refinery and Petrochemical Limited for the development of a modular refinery, jetty, and other infrastructure in Brass, Bayelsa State.
Akindele has denied all allegations and pleaded not guilty. He was granted bail earlier in the proceedings.
During a court session on March 10, Akindele, through his counsel E.O. Adekwu, SAN, attempted to introduce a letter as evidence. The letter purportedly showed that he had offered to buy out NCDMB’s interest in the project.
The EFCC, represented by Iheanacho Ekele, SAN, opposed the move. The prosecution argued that the document was a photocopy addressed to a public institution and therefore required certification before it could be admitted as evidence.
Ekele cited provisions of the Evidence Act, specifically Sections 89 and 102, to support his objection. He also referenced previous judicial decisions, including Adeyefa v. Bamgboye (2013) and Onwuzuruike v. Edoziem (2016), to reinforce the legal requirement for certified true copies of public documents.
He urged the court to reject the document, stating that only certified copies of such records are admissible under Nigerian law.
Following arguments from both sides, the court reserved its ruling until April 14. It also scheduled May 18 for the continuation of cross-examination of the prosecution’s fourth witness, Isaac Yalah.
In his ruling, Justice Ekerete agreed with the prosecution’s position. He concluded that the document in question was indeed a public document and, as such, required proper certification.
The judge ruled that the photocopy tendered by the defence did not meet this requirement and therefore could not be admitted as evidence. He subsequently rejected the document.
The case is set to continue on May 18, 2026, with further cross-examination of the prosecution witness expected.
Akindele is facing trial on multiple counts, including allegations of retaining and using funds he allegedly knew were derived from unlawful activities. The charges form part of a broader investigation into financial dealings connected to NCDMB projects.
The two corporate defendants in the case are Platform Capital Investment Partners Ltd and Duport Midstream Company Ltd. The case is registered as FHC/ABJ/CR/641/2024.
The prosecution of the case followed a petition submitted by a former member of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly, Hon. Israel Sunny Goli. He raised concerns about the disbursement of funds for several major projects in the state.
These projects include the Brass Fertiliser and Petrochemical Company Ltd, Atlantic International Refinery and Petrochemical Limited, and the Brass Petroleum Product Terminal Limited.
Goli alleged that under the leadership of then NCDMB Executive Secretary, Kiyesi Simbi Wabote, significant funds were released for these projects without corresponding progress on the ground.
He claimed that the NCDMB had indicated that about $30 million had already been fully disbursed for the refinery project. However, he said there was little or no visible development at the project site.
The EFCC has since expanded the scope of the case. Last month, the agency amended the charges against the defendants, increasing them from four counts to six.
The trial remains ongoing as the court continues to hear evidence and arguments from both sides.
