The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed the no-case submission filed by suspended Deputy Commissioner of Police, Abba Kyari, and his two brothers in the criminal case instituted against them by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency.
Kyari, alongside his brothers, Mohammed and Ali, is being prosecuted by the NDLEA on 23 counts, bordering on full disclosure of their assets.
The agency also accused them of disguising the ownership of properties and converting proceeds of crime — offences punishable under Section 35(3)(a) of the NDLEA Act and Section 15(3)(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.
To prove the charges, the prosecution called 10 witnesses and tendered at least 20 exhibits.
In response, however, Kyari and his brothers filed no-case submissions, arguing that the NDLEA failed to establish a prima facie case that would warrant them to put in any defence.
However, in a ruling on Tuesday, , Justice James Omotosho dismissed the no-case submissions, holding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the defendants, warranting them to open their defence.
“In view of all the exhibits and the evidence of the prosecution, the defendants need to offer explanations in this regard,” the judge stated.
He clarified that the ruling did not amount to a finding of guilt but was to ensure that the defendants were given the opportunity to present their defence and enjoy their constitutional right to a fair hearing.
“The evidence of the prosecution has established sufficient grounds for this trial to proceed. A connection between the defendants and the alleged offences, no matter how slight, constitutes prima facie evidence.
“Holding that a prima facie case has been established does not imply guilt. It simply allows the defendants to exhaust their defence options before a final judgment,” Justice Omotosho explained.
He further emphasised that the defendants remain presumed innocent until proven guilty, while the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, in line with Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
Upon the close of the prosecution’s case, the defendants filed a no-case submission, arguing that the NDLEA failed to establish ownership of the alleged properties.
Kyari contended that under Section 128 of the Evidence Act, transactions involving state land could only be proved through certified true copies of title documents, insisting that no other form of evidence was admissible.
However, Justice Omotosho ruled that the court would not evaluate the weight of the evidence at this stage, holding that the prosecution’s case justified a response from the defendants.
