The five-year jail term of Farouk Lawan, the former member of the House of Representatives, for receiving a bribe of $500,000 from businessman Femi Otedola on Friday upheld by the Supreme Court sitting in Abuja, the nation’s capital.
Justice Tijani Abubakar, while reading the lead judgement of the apex court panel, dismissed Lawan’s appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which had in February 2022 reduced the term imposed by a high court from seven to five years, for lacking merit.
The Informant247 gathered that Lawan, a former Chairman of the House of Representatives Ad hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, was arraigned in 2013 after he allegedly demanded a bribe of $3 million from billionaire businessman Femi Otedola, who accused him of receiving the sum of $500,000.
The bribe was said to help influence the removal of the name of his oil company from the list of indicted companies in the fuel subsidy scam of 2012.
Lawan was, in June 2021, convicted on the three count charges preferred against him by the federal government with a sentence of five years each for the first two counts and seven years for the last count, all to run concurrently.
Back story:
A three-member Appeal Court panel led by its president, Monica Dongban-Mensem, had unanimously overturned the former lawmaker’s conviction for two of the three offences he was earlier jailed for by the lower trial court in June 2021.
After his appeal against his conviction and sentencing by the lower High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, Lawal also got a reduction of his jail term by the appellate court from seven to five years.
This resulted from his acquittal in respect of two counts, which, each attracted a seven-year jail term at the trial court.
Lawan was left with a conviction for the third offence with five years’ imprisonment as punishment by the Court of Appeal’s overall decision.
During the appeal hearing at the Supreme Court, Lawan’s Counsel and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Joseph Daudu, had asked the court to allow his client’s appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
While adumbrating, Daudu noted that the Court of Appeal discharged on counts one and two, which attracted a maximum of seven years.
Daudu argued that if the Court of Appeal could discharge his client on the two counts, which he claimed have the same ingredients as the third count, the Supreme Court should equally let off the hook about the third count.
Counsel to the Federal Government, Bagudu Sanni, urged the court to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal and dismiss the appeal.