Justice Ayokunle Faji of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has fixed July 24, 2025, for judgment in the ongoing $2.2 million money laundering case involving Dr Olufemi Martins Thomas, a former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), and Kabiru Sidi, a Bureau De Change operator.
Dr Thomas, also known as Dr Ike, is standing trial on an amended seven-count charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The charges centre on the alleged laundering of $2,198,900, which the anti-graft agency claims are proceeds of unlawful activities.
The second defendant, Sidi, is charged with a single count of making false statements to EFCC officials.
The EFCC alleged that Dr Thomas procured his wife, Mrs Femi Thomas, to disguise the origin of the funds, a violation of Section 18 and punishable under Section 15(2)(a) and (3) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).
One of the charges 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.”
At the resumed hearing on Thursday, prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN) informed the court that final written addresses had been filed for both defendants, dated May 5 and 9, 2025.
He formally adopted the documents and urged the court to convict the defendants on all charges.
Highlighting the strength of the prosecution’s case, Iheanacho noted that six witnesses were called.
He pointed out that although the defence filed a no-case submission, it was dismissed by both the trial court and the Court of Appeal, which agreed that the EFCC had established a prima facie case.
According to Iheanacho, the burden then shifted to the defendant to prove the legitimate source of the funds.
Dr Thomas claimed he made the money through farming operations and property rentals, but his explanation was fraught with contradictions.
“The defendant claimed to have made a profit of N354 million in 2014, but his financial statement shows a profit of only N3.9 million.
“There is no harmony between the documentary evidence and his oral testimony,” Iheanacho argued.
He cited the legal principle that documentary evidence takes precedence over
oral testimony in establishing the credibility of facts.
“When oral and documentary evidence contradicts, neither can be relied upon,” he added.
The prosecution further discredited the farming income narrative presented by the defence.
According to the evidence, the farming company was registered in 2008, but only began operations in 2013, with financial records showing active business from 2014.
“There is no record of the company doing business before 2014. The CAC and FIRS documents contradict the defendant's claims of earlier operations,” Iheanacho submitted.
He also pointed out that the financial statements did not account for any transactions in US Dollars, and that the funds in question were found in Lagos, not Ekiti State, where the farm is allegedly located.
On the defendant’s claim of earning income from properties in Lagos, Iheanacho dismissed the assertions as unsupported.
“There is no tenancy agreement or rent receipt before the court. The defendant failed to provide specifics like property addresses or rental terms. The prosecution cannot be expected to go on a wild goose chase,” the SAN added.
He argued that such inconsistencies indicate intentional concealment, which is a key element in money laundering.
Iheanacho also referenced discrepancies in Dr Thomas’s asset declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).
According to him, while the defendant claimed an annual income of N25 million, his company’s emoluments were documented at just N5 million for the entire year.
“This further raises doubts about the accuracy of his financial disclosures. The defendant is trying to explain away millions of dollars without credible documentary evidence,” Iheanacho said.
The prosecution emphasised that under Nigerian money laundering laws, large financial transactions are required to pass through regulated financial institutions.
By allegedly moving funds in physical cash without proper documentation or channels, the defendants undermined legal safeguards.
“This is a case of money laundering where the issue of concealment is paramount. That is why the law requires such transactions to pass through financial institutions to ensure traceability.
“Any argument against this violates Section 1 of the Money Laundering Act,” Iheanacho concluded.”
He then urged the court to reject the defences offered and deliver a guilty verdict against both defendants.
After listening to the final submissions, Justice Ayokunle Faji adjourned the matter to July 24, 2025, for judgment.
Copyright Notice:
All rights reserved. The content on this website, including text and other digital materials, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without the express written consent of THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
For advertising inquiries, news coverage, or press releases, please contact us at thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08051017159, 08144048512.
إرسال تعليق