Justice Ayokunle Faji of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on May 29, 2025, adjourned till July 24, 2025, for judgment on the alleged $2,198,900.00 ( Two Million One Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred United States of America Dollars) fraud involving Dr. Olufemi Martins Thomas, a former Executive Secretary, National Health Insurance Scheme, NHIS.
Thomas is standing trial alongside Kabiru Sidi, a Bureau De Change operator, on an amended seven-count charge bordering on money laundering to the tune of $2,198,900.00 brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
Six of the counts that concern Thomas border on money laundering and transferring, in cash, proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 as amended.
The second, however, is facing trial only on count six bordering on making false statements to an official of the EFCC.
One of the counts reads: “That you, Dr. Martins Oluwafemi Thomas (a.k.a Dr.
Ike), the former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme, on or about the 3rd of July, 2015 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, procured Mrs. Femi Thomas to disguise the unlawful origin of the sum of $2, 198, 900 (Two million, One Hundred and Ninety-eight Thousand, Nine Hundred United States Dollars) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18 and punishable under Section 15(2) (a) and (3) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended by Act No. 1 of 2012).”
At the resumed sitting on Thursday, the prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho SAN, informed the court that the prosecution had filed final written addresses dated May 5 and 9, 2025 for both defendants.
He adopted the same and urged the court to convict the defendants.
In his submissions, Iheanacho said: “In line with the charge, the prosecution called six witnesses, and the defendant made a no-case submission, which was overruled and overruled by the Appellate Court because the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the defendant.
“The defendant entered his defence because the law required him to show how he acquired the funds legitimately. Part of his evidence was that he made a lot heavily from his farming businesses. The evidence of his farming was contained in his financial statement.
“The statement provided that he only made a profit of N3.9m in 2014, whereas the total turnover of the company was put at N120m for 2014.
“In court, he said that his net revenue was N354m; whereas, in the report, the net revenue was N3.9m.”
Iheanacho further argued that “the court cannot pick and choose which to believe between the two.
“Documentary evidence is the hanger with which oral evidence is accessed. Documentary evidence contradicting the oral evidence renders both evidence incredible and unreliable”.
Continuing his submissions, Iheanacho stated that the first defendant, also called the second defendant (DW2), filed the financial evidence and report.
“When asked about the report on the funds he provided for, he described it as Directors’ advances of N310m and N170m as deposit for shares, meaning that it didn’t originate from the company, as claimed by the defendant.
“They were all purportedly brought in cash. The records don’t refer to any Dollars. All the transactions were in Naira.
“The report captured what was paid to Directors as emoluments for the entire year, and it was put at N5 m; whereas, on the Code of Conduct form he filled out, he indicated that he earned N25m annually.
“There was no mention of Dollars as at when he declared his assets.
“ The business of farming was said to have commenced in 2007, whereas the CAC documents tendered show it was registered in 2008. And on the information filed with the Federal Inland Revenue Services, FIRS, the company commenced business in 2013.”
The prosecution tendered the account statement of the company, which showed that it commenced business in 2014 and that the company was not in business prior to 2014.
Iheanacho also submitted that “ Moreso, the claim by the defence that the prosecution didn’t visit the farm is a no- starter.
“There were, indeed, financial statements and bank documents, which are sufficient to show the financial transactions of the company. Going there to count the birds cannot establish the sources of the funds”
“All these contradictory depositions by the defence clearly show that the testimony of the defendant cannot be relied upon.”
Iheanacho also argued that the monies were not found in Ekiti where the farm is located as claimed by the defendants.
According to him, they were instead found in Lagos and “no explanation has been made on how the funds were moved from Ekiti to Lagos.”
About him making money from his houses in Lagos, he said: “There is no evidence of tenancy before the honourable court. No receipt issued in respect of any rent paid. For properties, he only mentioned the location. But when asked about it, he never provided the details of the place. The prosecution cannot be asked to embark on a wild goose chase. He is someone who has an evidential burden to discharge”.
Closing his argument, he submitted that “This is a case of money laundering, where the issue of concealment of transaction is paramount, and that is why the law requires such transactions to go through financial institutions so that there will be a trial. Any application that suggests otherwise will defeat the basis of Section 1 of the Money Laundering Act”
He, therefore, urged the court to discountenance the submissions of the first and second defendants and convict them as charged.
Justice Aneke adjourned the matter till July 24, 2025, for judgment.
