A Federal High Court in Lagos has further adjourned till February 26 the trial of a former Director General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, Raymond Omatseye, who was accused of N1.5bn contract fraud.

The adjournment followed Omatseye’s application, asking Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia to stay further proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal which he filed against the dismissal of his no-case application.

The trial judge, on Wednesday after being informed of the pending appeal and the application to stay proceedings, decided to adjourn in order to decide whether or not she would stay proceedings as Omatseye had requested.

Ofili-Ajumogobia had, on February 2, 2015, dismissed the no-case application filed by Omatseye in response to the prosecution.

The judge had ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had made a case strong enough to warrant Omatseye to canvass argument to exonerate himself of the charges.

But in his three grounds of appeal against the ruling, Omatseye asked the appellate court to determine “whether the learned trial judge did nor err in law when the court held that a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution against the appellant, sufficient to call on the appellant to enter his defence to the charges.”

It was the allegation of the anti-graft agency that Omatseye, while in public office, engaged in contract splitting and bid rigging estimated at over N1.5bn.

The offence, according to the EFCC, contravened Section 58(4) (d) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007.

Omatseye was also charged with money laundering contrary to Sections 14(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004.

But upon his re-arraignment before Ofili-Ajumogobia on January 21, 2013, he had pleaded not guilty to the alleged crime, following which the court asked the prosecution to substantiate its claims.

However, when called upon to respond to the EFCC, Omatseye, through his lawyer, Mr. Olusina Sofola (SAN), submitted that the charge filed against him was defective.

He added that the prosecution had failed in the final analysis to establish a prima facie case against him to warrant him to enter the dock to defend himself.

But Ofili-Ajumogobia had held that she had no difficulty in agreeing with the prosecution that the charge filed against Omatseye was properly drafted in accordance with the provision of the Public Procurement Act.

Click here to read from source.