The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected the no-case submission filed by Prof. Dibu Ojerinde, former Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), in connection with an alleged N5.2 billion fraud case.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice Obiora Egwuatu held that witnesses presented by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) had sufficiently established the elements of the alleged offences, necessitating that the defendant enter his defence.
Ojerinde was arraigned by the ICPC in July 2021 on an 18-count charge bordering on abuse of office and diversion of public funds during his tenure as head of both the National Examinations Council (NECO) and JAMB.
Although he pleaded not guilty to the charges, his legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ibrahim Ishyaku, later sought a plea bargain in 2022. The negotiations, however, collapsed, prompting the continuation of trial.
According to the prosecution, led by Ebenezer Shogunle, Ojerinde conferred corrupt advantages on himself, in violation of multiple sections of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, and the Advance Fee Fraud Act, 2006.
Following the presentation of evidence, the defence entered a no-case submission, arguing that the ICPC had not established a prima facie case. But the court disagreed.
Justice Egwuatu emphasized that the court must determine whether a defendant has a case to answer based on evidence linking him to the alleged offences. In Ojerinde’s case, he noted that multiple witnesses had given testimony concerning the counts, which include both advance fee fraud and corruption-related charges.
“The no-case submission fails and is dismissed,” the judge ruled, ordering the former registrar to proceed with his defence.
The case was adjourned until July 16 for continuation of the trial.
What you should know
Prof. Dibu Ojerinde, former JAMB and NECO boss, must now defend himself in court against an 18-count charge involving N5.2 billion, as the judge ruled that sufficient evidence had been presented to warrant a full defence.
