Background
Golden Touch Construction Project Ltd (the appellant), Peter Nwaoboshi (2nd respondent) and Suiming Electrical Limited (3rd respondent) were jointly indicted at the Federal High Court, Lagos, on charges of money laundering and abetting under sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011. It was alleged that the 2nd respondent obtained a loan facility on behalf of the appellant for machinery acquisition but diverted a portion to the purchase of a property known as “Guinea House.” The trial court examined witness testimony and documentary evidence, ultimately discharging and acquitting all three defendants on 3 September 2021.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria, dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal which on 1 July 2022 overturned the acquittal, convicted the defendants, sentenced the 2nd respondent to seven years’ imprisonment and ordered winding-up and forfeiture of property for Golden Touch and Suiming. Each defendant filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court, contesting their convictions, sentences, and the appellate court’s treatment of evidence and application of precedent.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court is bound by its prior decision in SC/CR/900/2022 (Nwaoboshi v. FRN) on identical facts, issues and grounds.
- Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 in convicting and sentencing the appellant.
- Whether exhibits F–F1 (bank documents) and R1 (certificate of compliance) were properly admitted or rejected, given the absence of direct witness testimony on contents.
- Whether the corporate sentence of winding-up and forfeiture was authorized by section 22(2) of the Act in respect of the offence charged.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court, per Garba JSC, held that:
- Under the doctrine of stare decisis, it is bound by its earlier decision in SC/CR/900/2022, which involved the same parties, facts and issues, restoring the trial court’s acquittal in that appeal.
- Appellate courts must avoid contradictory decisions on sister appeals: identical appeals should be heard collectively to ensure consistency.
- Documentary exhibits require proper foundation; absent direct evidence of contents, exhibits F–F1 lacked evidential value, and R1 was improperly admitted without proper challenge.
- Sentencing under the Money Laundering Act must conform strictly to statutory limits; winding-up and forfeiture of corporate assets exceeded the Act’s scope in a civil loan context.
Court Findings
- All three appeals (SC/CR/898/2022, SC/CR/899/2022, SC/CR/900/2022) stemmed from the same Court of Appeal decision and raised identical grounds and issues; a unified determination was warranted.
- Nwaoboshi v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2023) unequivocally held that loan proceeds become the borrower’s property and cannot be laundered absent malice or a substantive criminal offence; that precedent binds this appeal.
- Sankey JSC underscored that stare decisis applies when facts are in pari materia to guarantee legal certainty and uniformity.
- The Supreme Court restored the Federal High Court’s order discharging and acquitting the appellant, set aside the Court of Appeal’s convictions and sentences, and reaffirmed strict adherence to statutory sentencing powers.
Conclusion
The appeal succeeds. The Supreme Court sets aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/LAG/CR/988/2021 and restores the trial court’s acquittal and discharge of Golden Touch Construction Project Ltd, Peter Nwaoboshi, and Suiming Electrical Limited. The binding effect of Supreme Court precedents and the proper limits of the Money Laundering Act were reaffirmed.
Significance
This decision cements the binding nature of Supreme Court precedents under stare decisis, clarifies evidential requirements for documentary exhibits in criminal trials, and limits the scope of money-laundering prosecutions arising from civil loan transactions. It serves as authoritative guidance for future appellate and criminal procedure in Nigeria.