The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Thursday, objected to the bail variation canvassed by James Nolan, a Briton, who is facing trial before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Abuja for tax evasion and money laundering offences.
The anti-graft agency is accusing Nolan of being a part in the controversial gas supply contract, (P&ID) that led to $9.6 billion judgement liability against Nigeria.
The prosecution said that the defendant was a signatory to accounts of P&ID, Nigeria, the In-Country Support Manager of P&ID, Virgin Island.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant engaged in money laundering and tax evasion, forgery of immigration documents, running of a trafficking syndicate and was involved in corrupting Nigerian officials.
Nolan was arraigned on October 21 and admitted to bail on November 7, 2019, in the sum of N500 million and a surety in likes sum.
The Judge ordered the Briton who was charged alongside his compatriot, Adam Quinn (at large), to produce a serving Senator to stand surety for him in the same bail sum.
ALSO READ:Xenophobia: Nigeria, South Africa to cement relations through cultural diplomacy
In addition, the court said the Senator must be someone that does not have a criminal case that is pending in any court in the country and must have a landed property that is fully developed in the Maitama District of Abuja.
The trial judge, while ruling on the bail application filed by Nolan, stressed that an officer of the court will verify the statutory Certificate of Occupancy of the property of the surety, as issued by the Federal Capital Territory Administration.
Besides, he held that the proposed surety must submit a three-year tax clearance certificate and sign an undertaking to always be present in court with the defendant throughout the duration of the trial.
The surety is to depose an affidavit of means with two passport photographs and undertake to pay the total bail sum, should the defendant escape from the country before the conclusion of his trial.
The court equally ordered the defendant to surrender all his international passports, even as it mandated the Nigerian Immigration Service to confirm how many passports that were issued to him within the past 20 years.
The stringent bail conditions followed the prosecution counsel, Bala Sanga’s submission that the defendant was arrested after an extensive covert manhunt that stretched for over two weeks.
However, when the matter came up on Thursday, EFCC Counsel, Sanga told the court that the anti-graft agency would file a counter-affidavit to challenge the defendant’s application for bail variation.
Sanga explained that Nolan’s Lawyer, Chris Ezugwu, had in less than 24 hours, served on him the further affidavit, seeking the court’s leave to grant their request.
“I apply for a shift in the date to take our arguments, My Lord, in order to enable us to file a counter-affidavit in response to further affidavit served on us less than 24 hours before the court sitting.
“We were served about 2 pm yesterday (Wednesday),” he said.
The prosecution counsel, therefore, prayed the court to give him some days to file his counter-affidavit on Nolan’s request.
Sanga said that the commission was against Nolan’s plea for bail variation because of the peculiar circumstances of the case.
According to him, we are opposed to the court making the conditions of bail lighter because there are some documents from the Nigeria Immigration Service that are indicative of the fact that Nolan committed immigration quota trafficking and possibly could be an illegal alien.
The EFCC’s lawyer said if granted the request, Nolan might jump bail.
Defendant’s lawyer, Ezugwu, who acknowledged serving the fresh application on Sanga the previous day, objected to the EFCC’s plea for adjournment.
Justice Abang, thereafter, adjourned proceeding till December 6, 2019, for further hearing on the application for bail variation.
“I think it is in the interest of justice to adjourn this matter to enable the prosecution respond to further affidavit served on them by the defendant’s counsel,” the judge held.
and then