Alleged $6.52m forgery: Court admits fresh EFCC evidence against Lagos lawyer  


The trial of a lawyer, Olasubomi Osinusi, over an alleged $6.52 million forgery continued Thursday at the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) tendered fresh documentary evidence against him.

Osinusi is facing trial before Justice Mojisola Dada on a two-count charge bordering on conspiracy to commit felony and fabricating evidence.

Led in evidence by prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, SAN, the first prosecution witness (PW1), Umar Hussain Babangida, an Assistant Commissioner of Police and EFCC investigator, told the court that the defendant disclosed during investigation that he received emails from one Emenike Imana on November 6 and 15, 2015.

Babangida said the emails contained documents, including a sworn statement purportedly signed by Dan Jafaru Mohammed and a “To Whom It May Concern” letter, both authorised by the defendant and bearing his official seal.

The witness further testified that Osinusi admitted receiving an email originally sent by Fahim Nasim to Emenike on October 29, 2015, requesting him to prepare a letter for Dr. Louis Emover Williams for use in litigation involving the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) before the United Kingdom High Court.

He said the defendant prepared the letter on the letterhead of Olasubomi Osinusi & Associates at Emenike’s request and signed it. The letter allegedly stated that Dan Jafaru Mohammed, also known as Samuel Taidi, had signed the relevant statements, that the Federal Government approved the use of both names, and that the CBN could not trace his records because he served at the Supreme Headquarters, Dodan Barracks, under the name Samuel Taidi.

The prosecution sought to tender the documents in evidence, but defence counsel, D. S. Showemimo, SAN, objected, arguing that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 35 of the Police Act and Section 9 of the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, insisting the defendant’s lawyer was absent when the documents were produced.