For an N40 million fraud, Aisha Alkali Wakil, also referred to as Mama Boko Haram, and two other individuals, Tahiru Saidu Daura and Prince Lawal Soyade, have been sentenced to ten years in prison.
The trio of Wakil, Daura, and Soyade was found guilty on Monday by Justice Umaru Fadawu of the Borno State High Court, Maiduguri, according to EFCC spokesperson Dele Oyewale. The three had been charged by the commission with two charges of conspiracy and acquiring money via deception totaling forty million naira.
The EFCC spokesman noted in the statement that Wakil, Daura, and Shoyade, respectively, CEO, Programme Manager, and Country Director of Complete Care and Aid Foundation, a non-governmental organisation, and Saidu Mukhtar, now at large, did, with intent to defraud, obtain N40 million from Bashir Abubakar, the CEO of Duty-Free Shop Ltd, under the false pretence of executing a purported contract for the supply of five x-ray machines with solar energy.
According to Oyewale, the offence was contrary to Section 1(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.
The defendants pleaded “not guilty” when the charges were read to them.
Counsel for the prosecution, A.I. Arogha, presented four witnesses and tendered 17 exhibits before the court.
Justice Fadawu consequently convicted them and sentenced them to 10 years imprisonment for the offence of conspiracy. The court further sentenced the defendants to 10 years imprisonment for the offence of obtaining by false pretence and ordered them to jointly and severally pay the sum of N40 million to Bashir Muhammad.
The judge ordered that prison terms run concurrently.
Oyewale wrote in the statement: “The convicts’ journey to the correctional centre began when a petitioner alleged that they swindled him through a purported contract for the supply of five x-ray machines 1900 with solar energy to a non-governmental organisation, Complete Care and Aid Foundation, worth N40m. They neither supplied the machines nor returned the contract sum to the petitioner.”
