EFCC captures fugitive pension thief John Yusuf

<!– John Yusuf: re-arrested to serve 6-year jail term –>

John Yusuf: re-arrested to serve 6-year jail term

Pension thief, John Yusuf, who has evaded serving his six-year prison term has been captured.

Multiple reports said the EFCC captured Yusuf in Gombe.

The anti-graft agency has also obtained a remand order to enable him serve his prison term in Kuje Prison as directed by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

The EFCC had on March 21, 2018, secured a “re-conviction” of Yusuf for six years over a theft of N32.8billion.

Yusuf was, in addition, ordered to pay a fine of N22.9 billion by the appeal court.

Justice Talba of the FCT High Court had in 2013 given Yusuf a two year-sentence or a fine of N750,000.

The verdict triggered a national outrage. The EFCC filed an appeal.

The Court of Appeal Abuja Division on 22 March 2018, accepted the appeal.

In the five-point grounds of appeal, the EFCC asked the court to determine whether Justice Talba exercised the right discretion in imposing a N750,000 fine on Yusuf, after pleading guilty to converting N24 billion of Police Pension fund into his personal use.

Yusuf’s lawyers on 10 June 2015 raised a preliminary objection on the competence of the appeal for which they argued that the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory 90 days and therefore in contravention of s. 24(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2010 (as Amended).

They therefore urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.

The Justices of the Court of Appeal, dismissed the preliminary objection.

Ruling on the substantive matter, the Justices of the Court of Appeal held unanimously that the three counts involving the respondent (Counts 17, 18 and 19) clearly stated the amounts for which the appellant alleged that the respondent converted for his personal use.

That the respondent pleaded guilty to the three counts and thereby admitted to the conversion of an aggregate sum of about N24billion to his personal use.

The judges ruled that the sentence of the trial court, did not serve as deterrence to both the convict and others.

Consequently, they quashed the sentence and imposed their own.