Fed Govt urges court to ignore Moro’s claim of ill health

The Federal Government yesterday objected to a plea for bail by ex-Interior Minister Abba Moro and two others on trial for the 2014 botched recruitment exercise of the Nigeria Immigration Services (NIS).

The Federal Government, acting through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), urged a Federal High Court in Abuja to ignore the claim of ill-health by Moro, and on which basis he had sought bail.

Moro; ex-permanent secretary in the ministry, Mrs Anastasia M. Daniel Nwobia; F. O. Alaiyegbami and Drexel Tech Nigeria Limited were on Monday, arraigned before the court on an 11-count.

They were accused of defrauding 675,675 graduate applicants of about N675,675,000, having been made to pay N1,000 each as processing fees for 5,000 job openings.


The four defendants were also accused of breaching the Public Procurement Act, No. 65 of 2007 in the award of contract for the organisation of the recruitment test to Drexel Tech Nigeria Ltd.
Although they pleaded not guilty, Justice Anwuli Chikere ordered the remand of Moro and Alaiyegbami in Kuje prison, Abuja, and allowed Mrs. Daniel_Nwobia, said to be a nursing mother, to remain on the bail granted her by the EFCC, pending the determination of their bail applications.

Yesterday, parties argued for and against the grant of bail to the defendants, with the EFCC cautioning the court to refuse the bail on the grounds that the defendants could tamper with the prosecution process and witnesses.

Although Moro claimed, in his application, to suffer from acute diabetes and  high blood pressure, the EFCC, in its counter–counter affidavit, faulted such claim, arguing that while in its custody, and throughout investigation, Moro  neither  complained of ill health nor was he treated for any ailment.

EFFC also faulted Moro’s pledged to abide by the bail conditions and attend trial, saying it revoked  the administrative bail granted him (Moro) “as information received from the investigating team showed that the applicant would interfere with investigation and prosecution process embarked upon by the respondent.’’