The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos, challenging the acquittal of a former Executive Director of Projects at the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Engr. Tuoyo Omatsuli, alongside Francis Momoh, Don Parker Properties Limited, and Building Associates Limited, over an alleged N3.6bn fraud.
The appeal, filed on Thursday, April 9, 2026, through EFCC counsel Ekene Iheanacho, SAN, seeks to set aside the March 3, 2026 judgment of Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which cleared all four defendants of money laundering charges. The EFCC listed seven grounds in the notice of appeal.
Omatsuli was previously acquitted in 2020 following a no-case submission, while the other defendants were directed to enter their defence. The EFCC had appealed, prompting the Court of Appeal to set aside the trial court’s ruling and dismiss the defendants’ appeals against the decision that they had cases to answer.
The appellate court noted that the payment of N3,645,000,000 by a contractor to NDDC, Prosecuting Witness 4 (PW4), to Omatsuli through Building Associates Limited constituted an act of gratification requiring explanation. The court referenced Sections 8, 17, and 19 of the ICPC Act and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
The EFCC contends that Justice Osiagor, who assumed the trial after the retirement of former Judge Justice Saidu, failed to properly evaluate evidence, particularly the testimonies of PW4 and PW15, another NDDC director. PW15 testified that funds were requested to “appreciate members of the Board” in efforts to pacify restive youths in the Niger Delta region.
According to the EFCC, Omatsuli used most of the funds to acquire properties in Lagos under Francis Momoh’s company, rather than youth-related projects. The properties were later forfeited through a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture proceeding, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal in a related civil case.
The appeal will determine whether the trial court erred in acquitting the defendants despite evidence linking the alleged funds to personal property acquisition.