Judge says suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, rules investigators failed to establish theft despite six-year financial probe
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has suffered another significant courtroom setback after the Lagos State High Court discharged and acquitted two former lawyers in the chambers of the late Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mogbeyi Sagay, over allegations that they diverted nearly ₦188 million belonging to the law firm.
In a judgment that reinforces one of the cardinal principles of criminal justice—that suspicion alone is insufficient to secure a conviction—Justice M.A. Dada of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja held that the anti-graft agency failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that any money was stolen or that either defendant acted criminally.
The court consequently acquitted Tom Awhana, a former Head of Chambers at Mogbeyi Sagay & Co., and Paul Okoro, another former lawyer in the firm, of all 19 counts bordering on conspiracy and stealing.
The ruling, delivered in Suit No. LD/9456C/19 on June 4, 2026, brings to an end a criminal prosecution that centred on the management of the law firm’s finances following the death of its founder, respected legal practitioner Mogbeyi Sagay, SAN, in 2012.
How the Dispute Began
The case arose after administrators were appointed to oversee the late senior advocate’s estate and manage the affairs of his law practice.
Awhana was subsequently appointed Head of Chambers to supervise the firm’s day-to-day operations during the transition, while Okoro had left the practice not long after Sagay’s death.
During that period, additional corporate bank accounts were opened for the firm at Heritage Bank and Union Bank alongside existing accounts. Those accounts later became the focus of EFCC investigations after questions emerged over client payments and the movement of funds.
Prosecutors alleged that the defendants unlawfully diverted approximately ₦188 million from the firm’s accounts between 2012 and 2018.
The prosecution relied on testimony from bank officials and former staff members in an attempt to establish that the defendants fraudulently channelled firm funds into accounts they controlled without authorisation.
Defence: Transactions Were Part of Firm Management
The defence painted a different picture.
It argued that the accounts were opened with the knowledge and approval of the estate administrators and formed part of efforts to keep the law firm operational during a difficult transition following the founder’s death.
According to defence counsel, the funds in question represented a combination of legitimate client receipts, operational expenses and profit entitlements accruing to the defendants under an existing remuneration arrangement within the chambers.
The defence maintained that what emerged after Sagay’s death was essentially a disagreement over financial administration rather than a criminal enterprise.
Court Finds Critical Gaps in EFCC’s Case
In dismissing the charges, Justice Dada subjected the prosecution’s evidence to detailed scrutiny and identified what he considered fundamental weaknesses.
The court held that the prosecution failed to distinguish between legitimate business income, operational expenditures and contractual entitlements allegedly due to the defendants before characterising the transactions as theft.
More significantly, the court found no credible evidence that any identifiable client was deprived of money during the period covered by the charges.
Justice Dada also observed that key reconciliation reports and financial records capable of tracing the movement of funds were either not properly presented or insufficiently established before the court.
Without such evidence, the court held, it was impossible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed sums were unlawfully appropriated.
The judgment stressed that criminal liability cannot rest on assumptions arising from accounting discrepancies alone.
Regarding Okoro, the second defendant, the court found no evidence linking him to any criminal conduct and noted that his inclusion in the prosecution was unsupported by the material placed before the court.
Justice Dada further accepted evidence showing that Awhana had been formally appointed Head of Chambers and was authorised to oversee the firm’s financial and administrative operations during the relevant period.
That authority, the court held, undermined the prosecution’s suggestion that routine financial transactions undertaken in the course of managing the chambers were inherently unlawful.
Having found that the essential ingredients of the offences charged were not established, the court discharged and acquitted both defendants on all 19 counts.
Why the Judgment Matters
Beyond the acquittal itself, the ruling highlights a recurring challenge in Nigeria’s financial crime prosecutions: distinguishing genuine criminal conduct from commercial, corporate or fiduciary disputes.
Nigerian appellate courts have repeatedly held that criminal proceedings should not become instruments for resolving disagreements arising from contracts, partnerships or business management unless prosecutors can demonstrate the clear elements of a criminal offence.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that suspicion—even where compelling—cannot replace the constitutional requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where evidence leaves room for legitimate commercial explanations, courts have generally declined to impose criminal liability.
Legal observers say the judgment also reinforces another important principle: anti-corruption agencies bear the burden of tracing allegedly stolen funds with precision rather than relying on broad allegations of financial irregularity.
In cases involving law firms, estates or corporate entities where multiple accounts, operational expenses and profit-sharing arrangements exist, prosecutors are expected to establish not merely that money moved, but that it was dishonestly appropriated in violation of the law.
The decision therefore serves as a reminder that while financial accountability remains central to Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework, criminal convictions can only be sustained where investigations are supported by clear documentary evidence, coherent financial analysis and proof that satisfies the high standard required in criminal proceedings.
For Awhana and Okoro, the judgment brings to a close years of litigation. For prosecutors, it underscores an enduring lesson of criminal jurisprudence: allegations, however serious, cannot substitute for proof.
