At the resumed sitting on Thursday, the prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN), informed the court that the prosecution had filed final written addresses dated May 5 and 9, 2025, for both defendants. 

Justice Ayokunle Faji of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos State, on May 29, 2025, adjourned till July 24, 2025 to deliver judgment on the alleged $2,198,900 fraud involving the former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Dr. Olufemi Martins Thomas.

Thomas is standing trial alongside a Bureau De Change operator, Kabiru Sidi, on an amended seven-count charge bordering on money laundering to the tune of $2,198,900 brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The EFCC said that six of the counts which are specifically against Thomas border on money laundering and transferring, in cash, proceeds of unlawful activities, contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 as amended.  

Meanwhile, the BDC operator, Sidi, is facing trial only on count six bordering on making false statements to an official of the EFCC.

One of the counts reads, “That you,  Dr. Martins Oluwafemi Thomas (a.k.a Dr. Ike), the former Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme, on or about the 3rd of July, 2015 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, procured Mrs. Femi Thomas to disguise the unlawful origin of the sum of $2,198,900 and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18 and punishable under Section 15(2) (a) and (3) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended by Act No. 1 of 2012).” 

At the resumed sitting on Thursday, the prosecution counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN), informed the court that the prosecution had filed final written addresses dated May 5 and 9, 2025, for both defendants. 

The prosecution counsel who adopted the final written addresses urged the court to convict the defendants. 

“In line with the charge, the prosecution called six witnesses, and the defendant made a no-case submission, which was overruled and overruled by the Appellate Court on the grounds that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the defendant,” Iheanacho said.

“The defendant entered his defence because the law required him to show how he acquired the funds legitimately. 

“Part of his evidence was that he made the funds heavily from his farming businesses. The evidence of his farming was contained in his financial statement,” he added.

According to him, “The statement provided that he only made a profit of N3.9million in 2014, whereas the total turnover of the company was put at N120million for 2014. 

“In court, he said that his net revenue was N354m; whereas, in the report, the net revenue was N3.9million.”

Iheanacho further argued that the court cannot pick and choose which to believe between the two. 

He said, “Documentary evidence is the hanger with which oral evidence is accessed. A documentary evidence contradicting the oral evidence renders both evidence incredible and unreliable”.

Iheanacho further stated that the first defendant also called the second defendant witness, (DW2), who filed the financial evidence and report. 

“When asked about the report on the funds he provided for, he described it as Directors’ advances of N310million and N170million as deposit for shares, meaning that it didn’t generate from the company, as claimed by the defendant,” the prosecution counsel said.

He said, “They were all purportedly brought in cash. The records don’t make reference to any Dollars. All the transactions were in Naira.”

According to him, “The report captured what was paid to Directors as emoluments for the entire year and it was put at N5m; whereas, on the Code of Conduct of form he filled out, he indicated that he earned N25m annually.”

Iheanacho stressed, “There was no mention of Dollars as at when he declared his assets.

“The business of farming was said to have commenced in 2007, whereas the CAC documents tendered shows it was registered in 2008. 

“And on the information filed with Federal Inland Revenue Services, FIRS, the company commenced business in 2013.”

The prosecution tendered the account statement of the company, which showed that it commenced business in 2014 and that the company was not in business prior to 2014.

He also told the court that the claim by the defence that the prosecution didn’t visit the farm is a no-starter.

“There was, indeed, financial statements and bank documents, which are sufficient to show the financial transaction of the company. Going there to count the birds cannot establish the sources of the funds,” Iheanacho.

He noted, “All these contradictory depositions by the defence clearly show that the testimony of the defendant cannot be relied upon.”

The prosecution further argued that the monies were not found in Ekiti State where the farm is located as claimed by the defendants.

According to him, they were instead found in Lagos, saying that no explanation has been made on how the funds were moved from Ekiti to Lagos.

With regard to the defendant making money from his houses in Lagos, Iheanacho said, “There is no evidence of tenancy before the honourable court. No receipt issued in respect of any rent paid. 

“For properties, he only mentioned the location. But when asked about it, he never provided the details of the place. 

“The prosecution cannot be asked to embark on a wild goose chase.  He is someone who has an evidential burden to discharge.” 

Iheanacho told the court, “This is a case of money laundering, where the issue of concealment of transaction is paramount and that is why the law requires such transactions to go through financial institutions so that there will be a trial. 

“Any application that suggests otherwise will defeat the basis of Section 1 of the Money Laundering Act.”

He, therefore, urged the court to discountenance the submissions of the first and second defendants and convict them as charged. 

Justice Aneke thereafter adjourned the matter till July 24, 2025 for judgment.