The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has upheld the conviction of George Turnah Alabh, a former Special Assistant to the erstwhile Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Dan Abia, dismissing his appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court which found him guilty of failing to make full disclosure of his assets to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Peter C. Obiorah, who delivered the lead judgment of the appellate court, resolved all issues against the appellant and affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court, bringing to a close a legal battle that has spanned nearly a decade since Alabh was first arraigned in 2017.
The case traces its origins to investigations conducted by the EFCC into allegations of money laundering and obtaining by false pretence against George Turnah Alabh in connection with his role as Special Assistant to the then Managing Director of the NDDC, Dan Abia.
During the course of the investigation, Alabh was required to fill an Asset Declaration Form at the EFCC’s South-South Zonal Office located at No. 6A Olumeni Street, Old GRA, off Forces Avenue, Port Harcourt. It was in this process that the EFCC discovered that Alabh had allegedly failed to disclose material assets, particularly his interest as one of the directors and majority shareholder of Ashford Consult and Events Nig. Limited.
The EFCC subsequently arraigned Alabh before the Federal High Court on a four-count charge bordering on money laundering, obtaining by false pretence, and abuse of office. He pleaded not guilty to all four counts.
One of the counts specifically read: “That you George Turnah Alabh on or about 15th March, 2017 at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, South/South Zonal Office, No. 6A Olumeni Street, Old GRA off Forces Avenue, Port Harcourt within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court knowingly failed to make full disclosure of your assets to wit: your interest in one of the Director and majority shareholder of Ashford Consult and Events Nig. Ltd in the Asset Declaration Form you filled at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 27(1) & (3)(a) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act 2004.”
After a protracted trial, the Federal High Court delivered its judgment on May 20, 2022, finding Alabh guilty on counts one and three of the charge. Both counts related to non-disclosure of assets and failure to make full disclosure of assets, offences contrary to Section 27(1) and (3)(a) of the EFCC Establishment Act 2004.
The trial court sentenced Alabh to two years imprisonment on each of the two counts on which he was convicted. The sentence reflected the court’s finding that Alabh had deliberately concealed his directorship and majority shareholding in Ashford Consult and Events Nig. Limited from the EFCC during a formal investigation into financial crimes an act that the EFCC Establishment Act specifically criminalises as a standalone offence, separate from the underlying allegations of money laundering and obtaining by false pretence.
Section 27(1) of the EFCC Establishment Act 2004 makes it an offence for any person to make a statement or declaration to the EFCC that he knows to be false or which he does not believe to be true, while Section 27(3)(a) specifically addresses the failure to make full disclosure of assets when required to do so during an EFCC investigation.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, Alabh filed an appeal in September 2023 through his counsel, Dr A.G.O. Agorondi, challenging the decision of the Federal High Court on multiple grounds.
Among the grounds canvassed before the Court of Appeal were challenges to the validity of the service of the charge sheet on the defendant, as well as an argument that the filing of a civil suit over the same subject matter amounted to an abuse of court process that should have prevented the criminal prosecution from proceeding.
The abuse of process argument is a defence that is sometimes raised in cases where a defendant has instituted civil proceedings touching on the same facts that are the subject of a criminal prosecution, with the aim of arguing that running parallel civil and criminal proceedings on the same matter amounts to a multiplicity of actions that the court should not countenance.
Justice Obiorah, delivering the lead judgment of the appellate court, rejected all of Alabh’s grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
On the question of service, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was properly served with the charge sheet. This finding disposed of Alabh’s attempt to challenge the foundation of the trial on procedural grounds, confirming that the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter and that the proceedings were validly conducted from the outset.
On the abuse of process argument, the appellate court held that the filing of a civil suit over the same matter did not amount to an abuse of court process. This finding affirms the established principle of Nigerian law that civil and criminal proceedings can run concurrently on the same set of facts, because they serve different purposes criminal proceedings seek to punish offences against the state, while civil proceedings seek to vindicate private rights. The existence of one does not automatically preclude the other.
Most critically, the Court of Appeal held that the prosecution successfully proved the counts against the defendant, particularly the charge that he failed and neglected to disclose his interest in Ashford Consult and Events Nig. Limited in the asset declaration form he submitted at the EFCC during investigations into allegations of money laundering and obtaining by false pretence.
The appellate court accordingly affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, upholding both the conviction and the two-year sentence on each of counts one and three.
The decision reinforces the statutory obligation of persons under investigation by the EFCC to make truthful and complete disclosures of their assets when required to do so. The EFCC Establishment Act treats non-disclosure and false declaration as serious offences in their own right — not merely as ancillary matters to the primary charges of money laundering or fraud. This means that even where an accused person is not ultimately convicted of the primary offences, a failure to disclose assets during investigation can independently sustain a conviction and custodial sentence.
The ruling also confirms that persons who attempt to conceal their business interests such as directorships and shareholdings in companies from the EFCC during investigations cannot escape liability by claiming that the non-disclosure was inadvertent or that the information was not material. Section 27 of the EFCC Act imposes a strict obligation of full and honest disclosure, and the courts have now upheld this obligation at both the trial and appellate levels.
The Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the abuse of process argument is also noteworthy, as it forecloses a defence strategy that has been attempted in several EFCC prosecutions the filing of a civil suit over the same subject matter as a means of arguing that the criminal prosecution should be stayed or dismissed.