By Innocent Anaba

CONVICTED former Director General of Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, NIMASA, Temisan Omatseye, has appealed the five year – jail term slammed on him by Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos.

Omatseye was prosecuted by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a 27-count charge of bid rigging and contract splitting worth N271 million while he was the boss of the maritime regulatory agency.

Ex-NIMASA DG, Omatseye
Ex-NIMASA DG, Omatseye

The former NIMASA boss in the appeal by his lawyer,  Edoka Onyeke,  is arguing that he was persecuted and not prosecuted, stressing that contract splitting though existing in the law, the approval above threshold does not exist.

The lower court in its judgement noted that the embattled former DG of NIMASA was on suspension.

According to Onyeke, “Interestingly, the judge who had been transferred to the Kwara State jurisdiction threw out a January 23, 2013 letter from the Bureau of Public Procurement, BPP, which cleared Omatseye of any wrong doing while in the agency. The letter addressed to former President Goodluck Jonathan, signed by  Emeka Ezeh, former DG of BPP informed the president that after a scrutiny of the case, the Bureau was of the view that the 27 count charges were breaches brought under sections of the procurement Act that deals with administrative breaches rather than real offences under the Act that can attract conviction or sanctions from the regular courts.

“However in delivering the judgement, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia surprisingly jettisoned the report admitted as evidence in court, while relying on a secret circular issued in 2007 by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. She discharged and acquitted Omatseye on a three count charge bordering on contract splitting, while sentencing him to five years imprisonment on 23-count charge of N2.5million approval above his threshold, which doesn’t exist in law.”

Subscribe for latest Videos


Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.