The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, dismissed a no-case submission filed by Mr Saleh Mamman, former Minister of Power under administration of late President Muhammadu Buhari.
Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling on the no-case submission, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had been able to establish a prima facie case against Mamman.
Justice Omotosho held that the evidence tendered was such that the defendant must proffer some explanations or put in a defence to the allegation made against him, especially considering the seriousness of the offences.
The judge, however, said that Mamman was still innocent until proven guilty.
Freedomonline reports that Mamman was appointed minister by the late former President Buhari in August 2019 and was sacked in September 2021.
The EFCC, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024, had preferred a 12-count amended charge against the ex-minister as sole defendant.
The commission, in July 2024, arraigned Mamman on alleged money laundering and conspiracy with officials at the ministry and some private companies to “indirectly convert” the sum of N33.8 billion meant for the Zungeru and Mambilla Hydro Electric Power projects.
The former minister, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The anti-graft agency, in proving its case, called 17 prosecution witnesses (PWs) and tendered 43 exhibits against the defendant before closing its case.
However, Mamman, through his lawyer, filed a no-case submission on Nov. 19.
The former minister, who formulated one issue for determination, said the prosecution failed to present credible and reliable evidence before the court to sustain a conviction against him or for him to enter his defence.
But EFCC, in its written address dated Nov. 25, said whether in view of the evidence of its PW-1 to PW-17 and the exhibits admitted, it could be said that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case against the defendant.
Delivering the judgement on Thursday, Justice Omotosho ordered Mamman to open his defence in line with Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution to give explanations on some of the evidence tendered by the EFCC.
“I have carefully gone through the evidence presented to the court by the prosecution with respect to this charge.
“The evidence all points to the establishment of a prima facie case against the defendant.
“The evidence is such that the defendant must proffer some explanation or defence to the allegation made against especially considering the seriousness of the offences.
“This court will refrain from evaluating the evidence but will limit itself to stating that on the whole, a prima facie case has been made out against the defendant.
“This is not to say that the defendant is guilty as charged; put simply that he be afforded his right to fair hearing and put in his defence before this court.
“The evidence of the prosecution has founded sufficient ground for proceeding with this trial.
“A connection of the defendant with the offence, no matter how slight, constitutes prima facie evidence and as such the defendant would be required to enter his defence to the charge or a rebuttal of some sort,” the judge said.
Justice Omotosho further restated that holding that a prima facie case had been established did not necessarily imply that the court found Mamman guilty of the charge.
“It is simply to allow the defendant exhaust his options for his defence and to clear every unresolved issue which may weigh on the mind of the court in reaching a final decision.
“The defendant is still presumed innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution still has the duty to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt,” he said, citing Section 135 (1) Evidence Act, 2011.
According to the judge, the right of a defendant to defend himself/herself is a fundamental right provided under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“Such right cannot be taken from a defendant except where a defendant expressly or by conduct waives same.”
Justice Omotosho held that, in criminal trial, a defendant can elect to rest his case on the prosecution’s case, enter his defence or make a no-case submission.
“This defendant, having not waived his right to defend himself either expressly or by conduct and the no-case submission made by him having been overruled, he is hereby called upon to put in his defence to the charge against him.
“In conclusion, the address of counsel, no matter how beautifully constructed, cannot take the place of evidence.
“Based on the fundamental right to fair hearing as contained in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution which the defendant is entitled to, this court is inclined to give him the opportunity and afford him his fundamental right to fair hearing.
“Consequently, the no-case submission is overruled and the defendant is hereby ordered to enter his defence and make some explanations as to the charge and evidence made by the prosecution,” Justice Omotosho ruled.
The judge adjourned the matter until Feb. 23, 2026, for defence.
