Court faults weak evidence, acquits Oshodins of laundering case

The Federal High Court in Abuja has acquitted and discharged Mrs Isabella Oshodin and Bob Oshodin Organisation Ltd of all charges in a money laundering case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Delivering the judgment, Justice James Omotosho ruled that the prosecution did not establish the essential elements of the offences alleged against the defendants.

“The prosecution has an onerous task to prove the charge against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Where it fails to do so, all doubts are resolved in favour of the defendant,” he said.

The judgment was delivered on March 10, 2026.

The defendants were arraigned on a 15-count charge bordering on conspiracy to commit money laundering, transfer of funds allegedly derived from unlawful acts, and possession of proceeds linked to criminal breach of trust.

The prosecution also alleged that part of the funds was used to acquire properties in the United States.

However, the court found that the evidence presented fell short of the legal threshold required for conviction.

Justice Omotosho noted that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendants had knowledge of, or intent to participate in, any unlawful activity.

He further held that key statements attributed to Mrs Oshodin were inadmissible because they were neither electronically recorded nor obtained in the presence of her legal counsel, contrary to the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

“The evidence, whether oral or documentary, must establish the ingredients of the offence charged in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt.

“Any doubt regarding any element of the alleged offence must be resolved in favour of the defendant,” the judge said.

The court also faulted the prosecution for failing to produce documentary proof showing that the funds were transferred to foreign accounts or used to purchase the properties cited.

It added that the absence of testimony from a key figure in the case, Col Sambo Dasuki, further weakened the prosecution’s position.

On the core issue of whether the funds were proceeds of crime, the court held that the allegation was not substantiated.

According to Justice Omotosho, the defendants provided credible evidence that the funds were lawfully obtained from the Office of the National Security Adviser as payment for the sale of the company’s factory.

“In the final analysis, the prosecution’s evidence is speculative and fails to establish the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

“In contrast, the evidence of DW1 was clear, cogent, and corroborated even by aspects of the prosecution’s case,” the judge ruled.

He said, “Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. All defendants are hereby discharged and acquitted of all counts.”

During the trial, Mrs Oshodin told the court that her involvement in the transactions arose after she was contacted by a consultant while her husband, Robert Oshodin, was seriously ill and residing in the United States.

She maintained that the funds received were for legitimate business purposes, including the sale of the family’s furniture manufacturing company and youth training programmes in the Niger Delta and South-South regions.

She also disclosed that she refunded N180m to the government following inquiries by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, stressing that the company’s dealings were with the Presidential Amnesty Office and not directly with the Office of the National Security Adviser.

Counsel for the defendants, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), alongside Olajide Kumuyi, argued that the prosecution failed to establish any link between the funds and criminal activity.

They also pointed to the absence of key witnesses from the Amnesty Programme, whose testimonies, they said, would have clarified the legitimacy of the transactions.

On its part, the prosecution, led by H.M. Mohammed, maintained that its witnesses showed the defendants were associates of Col Dasuki (retd) and received substantial sums following his appointment as National Security Adviser.

He argued that the funds were laundered through foreign accounts and used to acquire properties abroad.

The court, however, rejected the prosecution’s claims, holding that they were not supported by credible and admissible evidence.