Richmond C. Amadi is an independent journalist, Book Publisher, member of RSU Alumni, Researcher (currently researching with Researchgate.net), Writer, Motivational Speaker. He is a BSc Holder in Office and Information Management, and Diploma holder in Management all from Rivers State University. Currently doing his MSc with RSU. Contact him on Richmond.firstname.lastname@example.org or Amadirichmondc@gmail.com All Social Platforms: @amadirichmondc
Goje boasts, says “FG withdrew case against me to save face, resources”
The two-count charge that were withdrawn by the Attorney-General of the Federation were an embarrassing triviality.
Former Governor of Gombe State, Senator Danjuma Goje, on Thursday, claimed the Federal Government withdrew the two-count charge against him to save its face and resources.
Describing the proceedings as futile, in a statement in Abuja, noted that the charges were more of persecution than prosecution.
Goje, Goje who was Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations of the last Senate, said: “The two-count charge that were withdrawn by the Attorney-General of the Federation were an embarrassing triviality. The charges had become more of persecution than prosecution.
“It was, therefore, no surprise to those familiar with the case when the Attorney-General of the Federation withdrew those ridiculous charges. The attorney-general did the right thing and should be commended for saving the face and the resources of the government, by terminating the futile proceedings.”
The statement, which was signed by his counsel,Paul Erokoro, SAN, entitled, “Truth about the withdrawal by the Attorney-General of the Federation of the criminal charges against Senator Danjuma Goje.
It read: “Following a spate of inaccurate and untrue reports in the media on the withdrawal of criminal charges against Sen. Danjuma Goje, it has become necessary for the correct facts to be publicly stated, to avoid genuine misunderstanding by well-meaning commentators and also expose the malicious insinuations of mischief makers.
“First of all, the so-called “N25 bilion fraud” that has been bandied about in the media, never featured in the case. The sum total of all the monies mentioned in the charge was about N8 billion.
“Of that total, N5 bilion was a loan taken from Access Bank for completion of infrastructural projects such as the Gombe airport, waterworks, numerous roads, Gombe Jewel Hotels, schools, hospitals and rural electrification. The bank testified in court that the money was properly utilised for the projects. The EFCC investigators also confirmed to the court that the projects were all completed.
“On the N1 bilion agricultural loan, the Central Bank testified in court that the loan was utilised in full compliance with the bank’s loan conditions.
“Other witnesses told the court that the governor never awarded any contract for the supply of food to Government House and government guest houses during his tenure for the N1 bilion alleged in the charge or for any other sum.
“On the N1.6 billion for the supply of English dictionaries for primary and secondary schools, the court was told that UBEC gave its approval and that the contract was advertised in two newspapers and that reputable book publishers and suppliers tendered and that SUBEB awarded the contract to the lowest bidder.
“As can be seen from the above, the 19 counts of the charge that were framed around the above monetary issues collapsed during the trial. The prosecution’s own witnesses completely exonerated the defendants. It was this reason that the 19 counts were all dismissed by the court, on the No Case submission.
“The two remaining counts challenged the governor’s power to approve the recommendation of the Commissioner of Finance that the old, unserviceable buses of Gombe Line, be sold to the public, following the purchase of new ones.
“As every adult in Nigeria knows, the sale of unserviceable vehicles is a routine exercise periodically undertaken by the government and even by private organisations. This is the first time that the authority of a governor to approve such a sale has been made the subject of a criminal charge.”