A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos is set to give judgment on Friday in the alleged N4.7 billion fraud case preferred against the former governor of Oyo state, Rasheed Ladoja.
Channels Television gathered that trial judge, Justice Mohammed Idris, has ordered that notices be sent to parties in the case to the effect that judgement would be delivered on February 8.
The court had reserved judgment in the matter on January 21, bringing to an end a protracted trial which started in 2008.
Justice Idris reserved his judgment after the counsels representing parties in the case adopted their final addresses.
The court held that it would notify parties when the judgment was ready.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had accused Mr Ladoja of converting N4.7billion from the state’s treasury to his personal use.
He was arraigned alongside his former Commissioner for Finance, Waheed Akanbi, on 11 counts of money laundering and unlawful conversion of public funds.
In one of the counts, Ladoja and Akanbi were accused of converting a sum of N1,932,940,032.48, belonging to Oyo State government to their personal use, using a bank account of a company – Heritage Apartments Limited.
The EFCC claimed that they retained the money sometime in 2007, despite their knowledge that it was proceed of criminal conduct.
In another instance, the former governor was accused of removing the sum of £600,000 from the state coffers in 2007 and sent it to Bimpe Ladoja, who was at the time in London.
Ladoja was also accused of converting the sum of N42million belonging to the state to his own and subsequently used it to purchase an armoured Land Cruiser jeep.
He was also charged with converting a sum of N728,600,000 and another N77,850,000 at separate times in 2007 to his own.
The EFCC claimed that Ladoja transferred the N77,850,000 to one Bistrum Investments, which he purportedly nominated to help him purchase a property named Quarter 361, Ibadan, Oyo State.
The anti-graft agency told the court that Ladoja and Akanbi acted contrary to sections 17(a) and 18(1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004, and were liable to be punished under sections 14(1), 16(a) (b) and 18(2) of the same Act.
They had, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
