Connect with us

News

Obasanjo’s In-Law, Abebe In Court For $4m Fraud

Published

on

Obasanjo’s In-Law, Abebe In Court For $4m Fraud

Two foreigners — Mr Paul Piche, a Norwegian and Ms Charlene Cross, a Briton, revealed how Mr John Abebe, the brother of the late Stella Obasanjo, a former First Lady of Nigeria, allegedly forged documents to perpetrate a four million dollars fraud.

Abebe is facing a four-count charge of forgery, fabricating evidence, using fabricated evidence and attempt to pervert the cause of justice at an Ikeja Special Offences Court in Lagos.

He, however, denied the charges which were proffered against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

During Tuesday’s proceedings which started at 9.23 am and ended at 3.48 pm, Piche who was led on evidence by Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, the lead prosecuting counsel for the EFCC, at the start of his testimony, provided a background of his career.

Piche, describing himself as the Country Manager of Equinor, Turkey revealed that he was the Managing Director of Statoil Nigeria Ltd from 2016 to 2017.

“Equinor is an international oil and gas company it was formerly known as Statoil, its currently engages in activities in 36 countries of the world.

“I was responsible for the overall activities of Statoil in Nigeria, I know the defendant in this case and I know BP Exploration Ltd.”

Explaining Statoil’s business dealings in Nigeria he said:”In 1991, Statoil Nigeria entered into a consultancy agreement with Inducon Nigeria Ltd (Abebe’s company) that continued till 1997 when the agreement was terminated.

“During the same period, specifically in 1993, Statoil entered into a Net Profit Interest Agreement (NPIA) and in 1995, the agreement ended.

“Statoil had further dealings with Inducon and in 2010, Inducon took out claims against Statoil at the Federal High Court.

“When I became Managing Director of Statoil Nigeria, my knowledge of Inducon was related to the ongoing court case.”

The Norwegian revealed to the court how the alleged forgery of the NPIA by Abebe was unravelled by Statoil.

“In 2010, Dr Abebe tendered a copy of the amendment letter between themselves (Inducon) and BP Exploration dated 1995.

“At that point, Statoil made enquiries from BP Exploration about the original amendment letter from 1995, such amendment letter was provided to Statoil from BP Exploration.

“When we made comparisons of the letter we received and the one that was tendered at the Federal High Court by Inducon and Dr Abebe we saw that there were a number of inconsistencies between the two versions,” he said.

Piche who was presented with the original and the allegedly forged NPIA revealed the discrepancies in the two documents.

“Annexure Two is the forged amendment letter tendered by Inducon and Annexure Three is the genuine version of the amendment letter that we received.

“In Annexure Three, the paragraph for the $4Million dollar buyout for production of oil does not exist but it exist in Annexure two.”

He said: “In Annexure Two the address of thw National Westminster Bank which is in 2A Charing Cross Road is all on one line where as if you look at Annexure Three, the same address is in two lines.

“The postcode of the address of the of National Westminster is WCTUH0PE with a Zero while on the Annexure Two the postcode is WCTHUHOPE with the letter `O’ which is a wrong postcode.

“In Annexure Two at the parenthesis, instead of i.e, capital L and a lower case e whereas in Annexure Three, in the parenthesis you will see a lower case i and a lower case.”

Piche also pointed out to the court that the paragraphs of page two of the forged document were not justified compared to the original where all the paragraphs were justified.

He informed the court that following the discovery, Statoil petitioned the EFCC and laid a complaint at the office of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.

“On Dec. 14, 2016 we laid a complaint at the State House office of the Vice President because it was obvious to us that the amendment letter has been forged.

“The fabrication of the letter at the Federal High Court to pervert the course of justice and we had no option but to petition the EFCC and ask the to investigate the matter.

“We sent copies of the letter to the Honourable Office of the Vice President as well as the Honourable Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation,” he said.

While being cross-examined by Mr E.D, Onyeke, a member of Abebe’s defence team, Piche admitted to have no knowledge of forensics.

“I have a B.Sc. in Economics from the University of Warwick and a Masters degree in Economics from the London School of Economics.

“I’m not a forensic document examiner, I cannot tell the type of font used in the document,” he said.

He admitted to the court that his company did not take any legal action on the alleged forgery until 2016 after judgments were given at Federal High Court and Court of Appeal in favour of Inducon, Abebe’s company against Statoil.

“I’m aware of the judgment against my company at the Court of Appeal on June 5, 2012 and I’m aware of my company’s appeal at the Supreme Court,” Piche said.

Testifying, Ms Cross, the second prosecution witness, described herself as a legal practitioner and provided to the court her knowledge of the business contract.

“I’m the in-house lawyer, Assistant General Manager Dispute Resolution Projects and I’m a Solicitor working for BP Exploration on London. I manage all BP dispute globally with the exception of the U.S

“I know Inducon Ltd and Statoil Nigeria Ltd, I’m aware of rhe fact that there was a relationship between Inducon Ltd from 1990 to approximately 1992 onwards.

“I’m aware that there were two aspects to the relationship, the first consisted of a consultancy agreement and the second consisted of a NPIA which was signed on Nov. 12, 1993,” she said.

Cross told the court that the original NPIA signed by Inducon and BP Exploration in 1993 was available because it was archived by BP over the years.

“The original was contained in BP Archive System which is a very organised system in place which consists of documents finally executed and sent for safekeeping.

“The NPIA was sent to the BP Archiving System on Nov. 16, 1993 and it shows on the upper sheer that the Records Managing Unit received this document for safekeeping.

“There is a barcode in the document which identifies the BP Archive System,” she said.

Cross told the court that alleged $4Million buy out option could not be inserted by BP into the NPIA.

“It makes no sense whatsoever for BP to have inserted such language in the document, in 1993, the NPIA makes clear that the buy-out option is in force as long as the 1993 NPIA is in force.

“There is no reason for BP to have inserted this provision on this letter of intent at this stage. BP’s provision is that it never agreed to those wordings.

“The statement that it applied to a pre-production stage of the buy-out is incorrect. I don’t know how the document was put together but this is not a BP document.

“In the months prior to March 2018, BP was approached by the EFCC to ascertain the authencity of some documents and thus culminated in me writing a statement to the EFCC on March 26,” she said.

Cross in her testimony, also corroborated the evidence of Piche by describing details of the document that revealed the alleged forgery.

On cross-examination by Onyeke, Cross admitted to not being trained forensic document examination, she also revealed that she made her statement to the EFCC while in London.

Earlier during the trial a member of Abebe’s defence team, Mr Uche Nwokedi (SAN) via a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Section 36 of the 1999 constitution sought to strike out the charge against Abebe.

Nwokedi said the allegations raised by the EFCC in the charges were allegations which were previously raised in suits at the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal.

Opposing the application, Oyedepo urged the court to strike out the application because it lacked merit.

“There were two judgments at the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal, however there were no pronouncements freeing the defendant from the allegations before the court,” Oyedepo said.

In her ruling, Justice Mojisola Dada dismissed the application of the defence, saying :”Nothing can be gleaned by ousting the jurisdiction of this court, the application is hereby wanting and is hereby dismissed.”

NAN reports that according to Oyedepo, Abebe committed the offence on June 22, 2010 in Lagos.

“Abebe knowingly forged BP Exploration Nigeria Ltd’s letter dated Nov. 30,1995 to Inducon (Nigeria) Ltd.

“He committed the forgery by inserting in page two of the said letter the following words: “Also note that the ‘Buy-Out Option’ only applies to the pre-production stage of the NPIA. The $4million buy-out is thus irrelevant from production of oil in any of our fields.

“He purported same to have been issued by BP Exploration Nigeria Limited,” the EFCC prosecutor said.

The prosecution claims that the defendant used the allegedly forged letter as evidence in suit No. FHC/L/CS/224/2010 between Abebe, Inducon Nigeria Ltd and Statoil Nigeria Ltd. at the Federal High Court.

The evidence was admitted and marked exhibit BB in the suit.

According to the EFCC, the defendant through his actions attempted to pervert the course of justice.

The offences violated Sections 120(1), 120(2), 126(2) of the Criminal Code Law of 2003.

The case was adjourned till Oct. 24 for continuation of trial.

 

(NAN)

Loading

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Headline

Political Elites Are Too Ambitious – Buhari’s Former Chief Of Staff Reveals Why One-Party State Will Fail

Published

on

The former Chief of Staff to late President Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Gambari, has stated that a one-party State in Nigeria cannot be actualised.

Addressing journalists in Abuja on Wednesday, Gambari, who now chairs the Board of the Savannah Centre for Diplomacy, Democracy and Development (SCDDD), stated that he is not worried about a one-party state because political elites are too ambitious to be contained within a single political party.

He, however, stated that, as a measure to check the frequent case of defections in the country, adding that in other climes, ‘if you defect, you vacate the position because it belongs to the political party under which you emerged’.

He said, “On the political parties and the fear of a one-party state, I’m not worried about this country becoming a one-party state. You know what? You can quote me. It will not happen, if history is any guide. You know, we don’t even know our own history.

“This administration is not the first to try to have a dominant party in Nigeria. Right from the beginning, the NPC was a dominant party in the First Republic. They were not the ones who caused the crisis in the main opposition, but they didn’t discourage it. In fact, they took sides. Where has that led us? It didn’t lead us to peace or development; it led to chaos.

“The NPN was the successor. They became so confident they felt that they would be there forever. What happened to that? In the end, it didn’t work. Third one, PDP, not long ago they were boasting that they would rule for 60 years. Where are they today? So any effort to make this country one-party will not work. And sometimes, it will not work for the wrong reasons, because the political elites are too ambitious for the ambition to be contained within one political party.”

Gambari, however, cautioned, “But let’s not wait for disaster to happen. Let’s build political parties. That’s what has been missing. We have not paid enough attention as a people to political parties. We are, in a sense, super elite. We gather in this room. How many of us actually belong to any political party? How many of us here present have a party membership card? How many attend political party meetings?”

Loading

Continue Reading

Headline

Tinubu’s Tax Policy Is Progressive, I Fully Support It – Oshiomhole

Published

on

Senator Adams Oshiomhole has praised President Bola Tinubu’s new tax policy, describing it as consistent with the principles of a progressive government.

He said he was among the lawmakers who supported the tax bill that eventually became law.

Speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today on Wednesday, the Edo North lawmaker said the Tinubu tax policy is progressive because it shifts the tax burden from the poor to the rich.

“The facts on the ground show that President Tinubu’s tax policy is consistent with the values of a progressive government,” Oshiomhole said.

“And this is a progressive tax policy that places a higher burden on those who earn more while offering tax exemptions to those who earn less.”

The former Edo State governor emphasized that he fully supports the new tax policy, noting that no government can function without taxes.

“It is only in Nigeria that people talk about government using money or claim that government earns money on its own. Governments do not earn money; citizens earn income, and the government taxes those earnings—whether individual or corporate. The sum of these taxes determines the annual revenue of the state,” he explained.

Oshiomhole added that working families will benefit under the new tax regime.
“There is no worker who is a member of the Nigeria Labour Congress earning N1 million a month, which totals N12 million a year. So, for salary earners, this tax policy is progressive.”

On Value Added Tax (VAT), the senator noted that the average Nigerian worker need not worry, as VAT primarily affects luxury purchases.

He also criticized Nigerians who pay VAT abroad but complain when paying the same tax in Nigeria.

“Everywhere in the world, when you buy non-food items, you pay VAT. Nigerians pay VAT in America, London, Dubai, yet they resist paying VAT here in Nigeria,” Oshiomhole said.

Despite criticisms, President Bola Tinubu had, in December 2025, reaffirmed that the new tax laws would take effect from January 1, 2026.

Tinubu explained that the tax laws were not intended to raise taxes arbitrarily, but to support a structural reset, promote harmonisation, protect citizens’ dignity, and strengthen the social contract.

He also urged all Nigerians to support the implementation of the new policy.

Loading

Continue Reading

Headline

Court Sets Jan 26 To Rule On Final Forfeiture Of UK Property Linked To Useni, Ozekhome

Published

on

The Federal High Court Abuja has fixed January 26 to rule on the final forfeiture of a London property linked to the late Jeremiah Useni, former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

The decision followed the failure of any individual or representative of Useni’s estate, to appear within the 14-day statutory window to show cause why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.

The proceedings arose from an ex parte application filed in late 2025 by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), which sought an interim forfeiture and preservation order over the disputed property, alleging it was acquired with proceeds of unlawful activity.

On November 28, Justice Binta Nyako, granted the interim forfeiture order.

The judge directed the CCB to advertise the order in a national newspaper within 14 days to invite “any person or body” with interest in the property to come forward and prove legitimate acquisition.

The property is located at 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2 7SX, named in the property dispute are a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, and Useni, a retired Lieutenant-General.

The matter was filed at the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Land Registration, UK, under case number ref/2023/0155, with Tali Shani as the applicant and Ozekhome as the respondent.

The property had been claimed by one “Ms Tali Shani” on one hand and Ozekhome on the other.

Ozekhome said he received the house as a gift from “Mr Tali Shani” in 2021, while lawyers for “Ms Shani” insisted she was the rightful owner.

A witness known as “Mr Tali Shani” had testified in favour of Ozekhome, claiming that he had “powers of attorney” over the property and had transferred the property to the respondent (Ozekhome).

Mr Tali Shani asserted ownership of the property from 1993 and claimed he later appointed Useni as his property manager, describing Useni as an “elder friend and business partner”.

On the other hand, several documents, including an obituary announcement, NIN card, ECOWAS passport, phone number, etc were tendered by witnesses of Ms Tali Shani to claim ownership of the property.

However, the tribunal found all the documents tendered for Ms Tali Shani to be fake.

The tribunal subsequently dismissed all claims, ruling that neither “Mr” nor “Ms” Tali Shani existed.

Loading

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

 


<im




JOIN US ON FACEBOOK

Trending