ICPC wins as Appeal Court upholds judgment against former LG chairman

A statement issued by the commission signed by its spokesperson, Folu Olamiti said the Appelate Court dismissed an appeal filed by the former chairman of Aniocha North Local Government, Chief Callistus Nwawolo who challenged his conviction of August 9, 2007 at the High Court of Justice in Kwale Delta State for an act of corruption.According […]

ICPC wins as Appeal Court upholds judgment against former LG chairman
ICPC wins as Appeal Court upholds judgment against former LG chairman

A statement issued by the commission signed by its spokesperson, Folu Olamiti said the Appelate Court dismissed an appeal filed by the former chairman of Aniocha North Local Government, Chief Callistus Nwawolo who challenged his conviction of August 9, 2007 at the High Court of Justice in Kwale Delta State for an act of corruption.
According to the statement, the former chairman was sentenced a year ago by the court to a three-year imprisonment or payment of a fine of N300,000 for corrupt enrichment through a contract he awarded while in office.
“ICPC had in 2004 arraigned the former chairman before High Court of Justice, Delta State in Kwale for acquiring interest in a contract awarded by his office during his tenure and in the “process conferred corrupt advantage on one of his relations who executed the contract, contrary to sections 12 & 19 of the ICPC Act,” the statement said.
It said when Callistus was not satisfied with the judgment, which was considered as mild, he filed an appeal to challenge the court’s decision.
The Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment read by Justice Inn Salauwa, dismissed the appeal by the former Aniocha North Local Government chairman, and contended that the prosecution had proved the allegation of corruption against him beyond reasonable doubt.
The commission stated that, the Appeal Court also blamed the trial judge, Justice G. B Briki-Okolosi, for giving the chairman an option of fine on the basis that Section 12 of the ICPC Act which he contravened, and upon which he was tried and convicted, did not allow the trial judge any discretion to impose a fine.