The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), says there is insufficient evidence to convict his predecessor, Mohammed Adoke, former minister of petroleum resources, Mrs Diezani Alison- Madueke, and former finance minister, Olusegun Aganga, over the scandalous $1.092 billion Malabu oil deal.
According to Leadership newspaper, Malami said this on Tuesday when he appeared before the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the alleged corruption, malpractices and breach of due process in the award of oil prospecting Licence OPL 245.
The AGF insisted that the payment of $1.092 billion in the Malabu oil deal into an escrow account at JP Morgan, London, by the former ministers, was fraudulent, as he argued that the money ought to have been paid into the Federation Account or the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
“I don’t have any aggression as far as prosecution is concerned. I can’t, with certainty, jump into the conclusion of indictment. We need to first identify what laws were broken, which will determine what line of investigation we are to pursue.
“What I’m saying in essence is, we are at the stage of investigation and, indeed, even those that are presumably considered to play a role are equally being given an opportunity to make presentations. The investigation is from different perspectives – because of criminality, breach of contract and associated elements,” Malami stated.
Speaking further, the AGF also informed the ad hoc committee that his predecessor, Mohammed Adoke, had not made himself available for investigation but that he had made a written submission to the Ministry of Justice.
“And I invited in that process, my predecessor in office, amongst others. Even though the investigation points to directions that require of him to say a word, he has not made himself available successfully even though written correspondence has been received from him in that respect and direction.
“Honestly I cannot say with precision that we have arrived at a point whereby we have to prosecute. But what we are doing, within the context of investigations, is to see what we can do without ruling out the possibility of prosecution, without ruling out the possibility of revisiting what has been done, and then without ruling out whatever eventually that may come, in terms of doing justice to what obtains as far as OPL 245 is at stake. So, that is the position; we’re at the point of investigation,” the AGF said.