Alleged N8.5bn Fraud: EFCC’s Forensic Examiner Testifies Against Ex-NIMASA Boss, Akpobolokemi

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Monday,
presented its sixth prosecution witness in the corruption trial of
a former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration
and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Patrick Akpobolokemi.

Benedict Agweyi, the commission’s forensic documents examiner
and acting director of forensics , testified at the Federal High
Court in Lagos about a signature analysis he carried out in respect
of the case.

A statement by the EFCC’s spokesperson, Wilson Uwujaren, said
the witness also narrated to the trial judge, Ayokunle Faaji, how
he carried out the forensic examination on some documents bearing
the signature of interest.

The statement did not indicate whose signature was analysed by
Mr Agweyi.

The EFCC is prosecuting Mr Akpobolokemi, who was the DG of
NIMASA between 2010 and 2015, and three others for 22 counts of
money laundering involving about N8.5billion.

He is being prosecuted alongside Emmanuel Atewe, a retired
major-general, who is a former Commander of the Joint Military Task
Force Operation Pulo Shield, and two other staff members of the
agency, Kime Engonzu and Josphine Otuaga.

The defendants have all denied the charges.

Led by the prosecution counsel, Suleiman Suleiman, at Monday’s
hearing, Mr Agweyi told the court that he received a letter of
request with some documents attached for forensic examination,
comparison and report from the office of the Deputy Director of
Operations, EFCC, Lagos Office on April 25, 2016

He said, “There were two categories of documents attached,
including disputed documents marked X1 to X12, and known specimen
handwriting and signatures marked as A1 to A8; B1 to B6, and C1 to
C13.

“They were for me to determine whether or not, the known
specimens were the ones on A1 to A8, B1 to B6 and C1 to C13.”

Mr Agweyi said he used three methodologies, bearing in mind
three principles in signature analysis, in his work on the
documents.

According to him, no two writers share the same unique
combination of handwriting characteristics.

He further told the court that “On the basis of this, I used the
first methodology, which was a simulation of the various categories
of writings, using a pencil, a handheld magnifier, a piece of paper
and my naked eyes.

“This methodology enabled me to identify certain characteristics
among which include the commencement and terminal style of the
writings; the letter forms and structural forms of the writings and
the connecting strokes, among others.

“The second methodology was a stereo-microscopic analysis using
a Leica stereo microscope, which enabled me to analyse the
different categories of writings under magnification ranging from
the original sizes to over 20 times the original sizes of the
writings.

“This enabled me to identify microscopic features including line
formation, the direction of pen movement, and the speed of the
writing in absence of tremor among others.”

Testifying further, he told the court that he used a third
methodology, which was a video spectra comparative analysis with
the aid of the VSC 5000.

According to him, “This enabled me to further compare the
disputed and known specimen handwritings under magnification. It
enabled me identify the existence or non-existence of
characteristics that are similar or otherwise.”

When asked by Mr Suleiman what he made out of his analysis, he
said, “On the conclusion of my analysis, I reduced my findings into
a report dated 7 May, 2016 and my opinion was to the effect that
the authors of the known specimens and signatures on the documents
marked A1 to A8 and B1 to B6 also made the signatures on the
disputed documents marked X1 to X12 and the authors of the known
specimen and handwriting marked C1 to C13 also made the handwriting
and signatures marked X1 to X10.”

He, thereafter, identified his report, which was already before
the court as Exhibit G series.

“I have no personal interest in this matter; and during the
analysis, I never knew the names of those involved other than what
was on the face of the documents,” he said.

The case was adjourned till July 13, 2021.

One of the counts against the defendants reads, “That you,
Patrick Ziadeke Akpobolokemi, Major General Emmanuel Atewe, Kime
Engozu, and Josphine Otuaga sometimes in 2014, in Lagos, within the
jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to defraud, conspired
amongst yourselves to commit an offence to wit: conversion of the
sum of N8,537,586,798.58 property of the Nigerian Maritime
Administration and Safety Agency and you thereby committed an
offence contrary to Section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) Act 2012 and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the
same Act.”

They had pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, thereby prompting
the commencement of their trial.

It will be recalled that the Lagos Division of the Court of
Appeal, in 2018, discharged and acquitted Mr Akpobolokemi of a set
of fraud charges involving N2.6 billion.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Monday,
presented its sixth prosecution witness in the corruption trial of
a former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration
and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Patrick Akpobolokemi.

Benedict Agweyi, the commission’s forensic documents examiner
and acting director of forensics , testified at the Federal High
Court in Lagos about a signature analysis he carried out in respect
of the case.

A statement by the EFCC’s spokesperson, Wilson Uwujaren, said
the witness also narrated to the trial judge, Ayokunle Faaji, how
he carried out the forensic examination on some documents bearing
the signature of interest.

The statement did not indicate whose signature was analysed by
Mr Agweyi.

The EFCC is prosecuting Mr Akpobolokemi, who was the DG of
NIMASA between 2010 and 2015, and three others for 22 counts of
money laundering involving about N8.5billion.

He is being prosecuted alongside Emmanuel Atewe, a retired
major-general, who is a former Commander of the Joint Military Task
Force Operation Pulo Shield, and two other staff members of the
agency, Kime Engonzu and Josphine Otuaga.

The defendants have all denied the charges.

Led by the prosecution counsel, Suleiman Suleiman, at Monday’s
hearing, Mr Agweyi told the court that he received a letter of
request with some documents attached for forensic examination,
comparison and report from the office of the Deputy Director of
Operations, EFCC, Lagos Office on April 25, 2016

He said, “There were two categories of documents attached,
including disputed documents marked X1 to X12, and known specimen
handwriting and signatures marked as A1 to A8; B1 to B6, and C1 to
C13.

“They were for me to determine whether or not, the known
specimens were the ones on A1 to A8, B1 to B6 and C1 to C13.”

Mr Agweyi said he used three methodologies, bearing in mind
three principles in signature analysis, in his work on the
documents.

According to him, no two writers share the same unique
combination of handwriting characteristics.

He further told the court that “On the basis of this, I used the
first methodology, which was a simulation of the various categories
of writings, using a pencil, a handheld magnifier, a piece of paper
and my naked eyes.

“This methodology enabled me to identify certain characteristics
among which include the commencement and terminal style of the
writings; the letter forms and structural forms of the writings and
the connecting strokes, among others.

“The second methodology was a stereo-microscopic analysis using
a Leica stereo microscope, which enabled me to analyse the
different categories of writings under magnification ranging from
the original sizes to over 20 times the original sizes of the
writings.

“This enabled me to identify microscopic features including line
formation, the direction of pen movement, and the speed of the
writing in absence of tremor among others.”

Testifying further, he told the court that he used a third
methodology, which was a video spectra comparative analysis with
the aid of the VSC 5000.

According to him, “This enabled me to further compare the
disputed and known specimen handwritings under magnification. It
enabled me identify the existence or non-existence of
characteristics that are similar or otherwise.”

When asked by Mr Suleiman what he made out of his analysis, he
said, “On the conclusion of my analysis, I reduced my findings into
a report dated 7 May, 2016 and my opinion was to the effect that
the authors of the known specimens and signatures on the documents
marked A1 to A8 and B1 to B6 also made the signatures on the
disputed documents marked X1 to X12 and the authors of the known
specimen and handwriting marked C1 to C13 also made the handwriting
and signatures marked X1 to X10.”

He, thereafter, identified his report, which was already before
the court as Exhibit G series.

“I have no personal interest in this matter; and during the
analysis, I never knew the names of those involved other than what
was on the face of the documents,” he said.

The case was adjourned till July 13, 2021.

One of the counts against the defendants reads, “That you,
Patrick Ziadeke Akpobolokemi, Major General Emmanuel Atewe, Kime
Engozu, and Josphine Otuaga sometimes in 2014, in Lagos, within the
jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to defraud, conspired
amongst yourselves to commit an offence to wit: conversion of the
sum of N8,537,586,798.58 property of the Nigerian Maritime
Administration and Safety Agency and you thereby committed an
offence contrary to Section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) Act 2012 and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the
same Act.”

They had pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, thereby prompting
the commencement of their trial.

It will be recalled that the Lagos Division of the Court of
Appeal, in 2018, discharged and acquitted Mr Akpobolokemi of a set
of fraud charges involving N2.6 billion.