Court discharges, acquits four Ukrainians of illegal bunkering

A Federal High Court in Port Harcourt has cleared four Ukrainian
men and a vessel charged with illegal oil bunkering by the Federal
Government.

Justice Adamu Turaki Mohammed discharged and acquitted Vaskov
Andriy, Garchev Mykhaylo, Shulga Vladyslav, Orlovkyi Lyvan and a
ship, MT. San Pedro PIO, after finding them not guilty of six
counts bordering on the offences.

The judge held that there was no evidence that they broke the
law. He ordered that the vessel, which was seized, be released
forthwith.

The government arraigned the Ukrainians on March 21, 2019, on a
two-count charge.

The charge was amended on May 3, 2019 to six counts of
conspiracy to deal in petroleum products, dealing in petroleum
products, making false documents and uttering contrary to sections
3(6) and 1(17)(a), 1 (2)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act,
2007.

Each defendant pleaded not guilty.

According to the prosecution, MT San Padre Pio and a 16 all-male
crew members were arrested by the Nigerian Navy in September
2018.

They were accused of illegally transporting five million litres
of diesel without permit from Nigerian authorities.

The prosecution claimed that the vessel anchored around Odudu
Oil Field, Rivers, and waited to discharge the petroleum product to
smaller vessels before it was caught by a naval patrol team.

The government made its allegations through its counsel, Samuel
Chime. It also called nine witnesses and tendered several
exhibits.

The defendants disputed the allegations through their counsel,
Babajide Koku SAN.

Koku contended that the government’s case was baseless because
the defendants had obtained appropriate authorisation for its
operations.

Delivering judgment on November 28, 2019, Justice Mohammed
upheld Koku’s argument and said the government failed to prove its
case.

The judge held: “…and by virtue of the sale agreement between
AUGUST A Energy and ANOSYKE Group of Companies, the amended
purchase order… together with evidence of PW6 under
cross-examination, who admitted that the Department of Petroleum
Resources (DPR) import permit is valid, I have no doubt that the
Prosecution has failed to prove that the defendants had no licence
or authority to deal in Petroleum Product. I so hold.

“…Again, Exhibit A1 has shown that Naval approval was obtained
in respect of Exhibit J, while the Department of Petroleum
Resources import permit attached to Exhibit 63 has shown that the
necessary permit was equally secured in respect of Exhibit J from
the DPR.

“It is clear both from Exhibit A1 and the DPR permit, that the
company in whose favour the approvals were granted is ANOSYKE Group
of Companies.

“Similarly, as I have held above that the Prosecution has failed
to prove Count 2 of the charge against the Defendants, I am equally
unable to infer, from the entire evidence adduced by the
prosecution, how the 1st to 5th Defendants conspired with each
other to, without lawful authority or appropriate licence import;
distribute or deal in/with Petroleum Product as contained in Count
1, particularly having regard to Exhibit A1 and the DPR permit
attached to Exhibit G3. I so hold.

“…Accordingly, therefore, 1st 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants
are found not guilty as charged and are hereby discharged and
acquitted. As a consequence, the order made on the 26-9-2018 in
respect of Exhibit J is hereby vacated.”