The five-man panel of the Supreme Court has reversed the Appeal Court judgement that mandated Melrose General Services, a firm owned by Gbenga Makanjuola, a former aide to the ex- president of the Senate, Bukola Saraki, finally forfeits N1.4 billion to the Federal Government being part of the proceed of the N3.5 billion London-Paris Club refund.
Aside from that, the apex court overturned the 2018 decision of the Federal High Court regarding an alleged N3.5 billion fraud case against the firm, ending over five years of legal battle involving the Federal Government through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The apex court yesterday delivered judgement on the suit brought before it by the firm after been unsatisfied with the 2019 Appeal Court verdict that favoured the Federal Government against the firm.
Speaking on the outcome of the suit, Saraki described the judgement as one that has brought an arduous legal ordeal to a just conclusion.
The former senate president stated that the verdict of the apex court indicated that the judges adhered strictly to dictate of the law.
He commended the judges for engaging in meticulous examination of the evidence brought before the Supreme Court by the firm.
Meanwhile, Saraki appealed to Nigerians to often stand for fairness in the fight against corruption, saying this judgement should be seen as an inspiration to champion rule of law across the country.
According to him, “I am profoundly grateful to Almighty Allah(SWT), the ultimate arbiter of justice, for guiding the Supreme Court to this righteous verdict. I commend the judiciary for their meticulous examination of the evidence and adherence to due process, which has ensured that justice prevailed.
“I also thank Melrose’s legal team for their tireless efforts in seeing this case to a just conclusion.
“Moving forward, we all have to canvass for fairness in the fight against corruption. We should see this verdict as an inspiration to champion the rule of law, promote democracy and its institutions, and tolerate divergent views”.
