By Lukman Olabiyi, Lagos
A chartered accountant, Ms Omafume Augustina Ayinuola, who has been denied bail twice by two justices of the Federal High Court in Lagos, has challenged the decision before the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division.
Omafume was arraigned by the Police from the Force Criminal Investigation Department (ForceCID) Annex, Alagbon, Ikoyi, Lagos, for allegedly defrauding a Nigerian stockbroker and entrepreneur, Peter Ololo, and his companies of N1, 072, 254, 411 and $975, 102.58 respectively.
She was arraigned alongside her company, Patridia Resources Limited, on a 15-count charge bordering on conspiracy, unlawful conversion of funds, money laundering, and fraud.
However, her applications to secure bail pending trial were dismissed on two occasions.
Dissatisfied, Omafume, through her lawyer, Olubusola Ashiru, has filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. She is praying the court to set aside the rulings of Justice Akintayo Aluko and Justice Kehinde Ogundare of the Federal High Court, Lagos, delivered on September 5, 2023, and March 30, 2024, respectively, dismissing her applications for bail.
Specifically, she urges the court to grant her application for bail dated and filed on August 15, 2023, and admit her to bail.
The Appellant averred that she is the accountant to the ‘nominal complainant’ (Mr Peter Lolo) and his numerous companies, and that they were also involved in an amorous relationship.
She stated that the reason she procured another international passport was not to escape from the criminal trial against her, but due to the actions of the nominal party constantly frustrating her.
The appellant further averred that she was advised by one of the investigating team of the Police to seek asylum against the said nominal complaint, who she described as an extremely toxic and jealous lover.
She stated that despite obtaining the international passport, she still voluntarily surrendered to the first respondent to be arraigned.
The appellant averred that notwithstanding that the nominal complainant is not a party to the criminal proceedings before the lower court, his intention is to continuously instigate the current charge against her.
The appellant’s lawyer, Ashiru, argued that bail is a constitutional issue as may be determined by the court, stressing that the presumption of innocence pursuant to section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) is in favour of the appellant.
He submitted that until a competent court of jurisdiction convicts the appellant on the alleged offence, her innocence is presumed under the law.
He stated that the continuous confinement and denying the appellant bail after eight months is in contravention of the extant provision of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended).
The appellant averred that the first respondent (Inspector General of Police) failed to proffer any evidence to be entitled to the refusal of the appellant’s application.
He stated that from the totality of evidence gathered in the appellant’s application for bail, the lower court ought to have properly considered, notwithstanding the alleged procurement of an international passport, in the interest of justice.
Some of the grounds conversed by the appellant include:
- The learned Trial judge misdirected himself in law when he failed to admit the Appellant to bail as the principle of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) is in the Appellant’s favour having not been convicted of the offence before any competent Court of jurisdiction.
- The lower Court erred in law and facts when he failed to appreciate the circumstances under which the Appellant allegedly procured another international passport for her well-being and safety when the nominal complainant, the Appellant’s jealous lover, was willing to make life unbearable and permanently keep the Appellant in jail.
- There is no evidence which if accepted would support the findings of the lower Court in arriving at its decision refusing the Appellant’s bail.
- The evidence adduced by the Appellant is balanced against that adduced by the 1st Respondents on the imaginary scale of justice on the continuous Appellant’s for over 6 months.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.