A Chartered Accountant, Ms. Omafume Augustina Ayinuola, has prayed to the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, to overturn the decision of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, which had denied her bail application twice.
It would be recalled that Ayinuola was arraigned before the Federal High Court by the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) for allegedly defrauding a Nigerian stockbroker and entrepreneur, Peter Ololo, and his companies of a sum to the tune of N1,072,254,411 and $975,102.58 respectively.
The Chartered Accountant was arraigned alongside her company, Patridia Resources Limited, on a 15-count charge bothering on conspiracy, unlawful conversion of funds, money laundering and fraud.
But her applications for bail pending trial were dismissed on two occasions.
But not satisfied, Ayinuola in her Notice of Appeal filed by her lawyer, Olubusola Ashiru is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling of Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos, delivered on September 5, 2023, in Suit No: FHC/L/405C/2023 on the appellant’s application for bail.
The appellant is equally praying to the Appeal Court to set aside the decision of Justice Kehinde Ogundare made on March 30, 2024, dismissing the appellant/applicant’s application for bail.
The Chartered Accountant specifically asked the Court of Appeal to grant her request for bail dated and filed on August 15, 2023, and admit her to bail.
In her argument before the Appellate Court, Ayinuola who averred that she is the accountant to the nominal complainant’s (Peter Ololo) numerous companies and was also into an amorous relationship, stated that the reason she procured another international passport was not to escape from the criminal trial against her, but for the action of the norminal party to constantly frustrate her.
The Chartered Accountant further averred that she was advised by one of the investigating teams of the police to seek asylum against the said norminal complaint being an ‘extremely toxic’ and ‘jealous lover’, adding that despite obtaining the international passport, she still voluntarily, without any force still came to the 1st respondent to be arraigned.
Ayinuola posited that notwithstanding that the nominal complainant is not a party to the criminal proceedings before the lower court, his intention is to continuously instigate the current charge against her.
Moreover, the counsel for the appellant, Ashiru, argued that bail is a constitutional issue as may be determined by the court, stressing that the presumption of innocence pursuant to Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) is in favour of the appellant.
The lawyer maintained that until a competent court of jurisdiction convicts the appellant on the alleged offence, her innocence is presumed under the law.
Ashiru contended that the continuous confinement, and denying of the appellant bail after 8 months is in contravention of the extant provision of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended).
The counsel stated that the 1st respondent (Inspector General of Police) failed to proffer any evidence to be entitled to the refusal of the appellant’s application.
Ashiru argued that from the totality of the evidence gathered in the appellant’s application for bail, the lower court ought to have properly considered notwithstanding the alleged procurement of an international passport in the interest of justice.
Some of the grounds of appeal include "That the learned trial judge misdirected himself in law when he failed to admit the appellant to bail as the principle of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) is in the appellant’s favour having not been convicted of the offence before any competent court of jurisdiction.
"The lower court erred in law and facts when it failed to appreciate the circumstances under which the appellant allegedly procured another international passport for her well-being and safety when the nominal complainant, the appellant's jealous lover was willing to make life unbearable and permanently keep the appellant in jail.
"There is no evidence which is accepted would support the findings of the lower court in arriving at its decision refusing the appellant's bail.
All rights reserved. This material and other digital content on this website may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without the prior express written permission of THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
For advertising inquiries, please contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492. For news coverage or press releases, call 08022717838.
Post a Comment