The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of a former Executive Director of Projects at the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Engr. Tuoyo Omatsuli, along with three others over an alleged ₦3.6 billion fraud case. The appeal was lodged before the Court of Appeal in Lagos.
The anti-graft agency is seeking to overturn the March 3, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos, which discharged and acquitted Omatsuli, Francis Momoh, Don Parker Properties Limited, and Building Associates Limited of money laundering charges.
In a Notice of Appeal dated April 9, 2026, EFCC counsel Ekene Iheanacho, SAN, argued that the trial court erred in its judgment and outlined seven grounds for the appeal. The Commission is also asking the appellate court to grant specific reliefs aimed at reversing the lower court’s decision.
Justice Osiagor had ruled that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the allegations contained in the 46-count charge brought against the defendants. This was despite the presentation of extensive evidence during the retrial, including testimonies from 16 witnesses and 34 exhibits.
The case has a long procedural history. In 2020, Omatsuli was initially acquitted at the no-case submission stage, while the other defendants were directed to open their defence. Dissatisfied, the EFCC appealed that ruling, and the Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the acquittal of Omatsuli and upheld that the other defendants had a case to answer.
In its earlier judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the payment of ₦3,645,000,000 by a contractor to the NDDC, identified as Prosecution Witness 4 (PW4), to Omatsuli through Building Associates Limited suggested an act of gratification. The appellate court noted that such a transaction required proper explanation under relevant laws, including provisions of the ICPC Act and the Constitution.
However, the EFCC now contends that Justice Osiagor, who took over the case after the retirement of the previous trial judge, failed to properly consider the findings of the Court of Appeal. The Commission argues that the judge relied on the record of the earlier proceedings but disregarded critical conclusions already established by the appellate court.
According to the EFCC, the trial judge did not adequately evaluate key pieces of evidence, particularly the testimonies of PW4 and PW15. The Commission stated that PW15, also a director at the NDDC, had approached PW4, a contractor, requesting financial “appreciation” for board members whenever payments were made to him.
The prosecution maintains that PW4 complied by making payments to several board members, including Omatsuli, who allegedly received his share through the account of Building Associates Limited. The EFCC further claims that instead of using the funds for their stated purpose of addressing youth unrest in the Niger Delta, the money was diverted.
The agency alleged that Omatsuli used a significant portion of the funds to acquire properties in Lagos through a private company linked to him. These properties, according to the EFCC, have already been forfeited through a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture process, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in a separate civil proceeding.
The EFCC also argued that the trial judge failed to apply relevant anti-corruption laws, including the ICPC Act, the Code of Conduct Bureau Act, and provisions of the Constitution, in determining whether the funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activity.
Additionally, the Commission pointed to evidence suggesting efforts to conceal the alleged illicit transactions. It claimed that Omatsuli withdrew as a director from his company and requested that PW4 issue a subcontract document to justify the ₦3.6 billion payment.
According to the EFCC, this evidence, supported by documentation and testimony from PW4 and PW13, was not contradicted and had previously been acknowledged by the Court of Appeal. The agency argued that the trial court failed to properly consider these findings.
The EFCC is now urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the acquittal and re-evaluate the case in light of what it describes as substantial evidence and legal misinterpretations by the lower court.
