Former Labour Minister, Sen. Chris Ngige, has said that his hands are clean in the N2.2 billion fraud allegation filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in Abuja.

Ngige, who served as Minister of Labour from November 11, 2015, to May 29, 2023, was arraigned on December 12 on an eight-count charge bordering on abuse of office and acceptance of gifts. He was detained at Kuje Prison on the order of the presiding judge.

Ngige was granted bail by Justice Maryam Hassan of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, sitting in Gwarimpa. Shortly after perfecting his bail conditions, Ngige moved straight to participate in the caucus meeting of the National Working Committee of the All Progressives Congress (APC) at Aso Villa, Abuja.

The anti-graft agency accused the former minister of using his position to confer unfair advantage on companies allegedly linked to his associates.

The prosecution alleged that Ngige approved seven NSITF consultancy, training and supply contracts worth N366.47m in favour of Cezimo Nigeria Limited, as well as eight contracts valued at N583.68m awarded to Zitacom Nigeria Limited.

He was also accused of influencing the award of eight contracts worth N362.04m to Jeff & Xris Limited and four contracts valued at N668.14m to Olde English Consolidated Limited.

Another four contracts worth N161.6m were allegedly awarded through Shale Atlantic Intercontinental Services Limited, all companies said to be linked to his associates.

The EFCC further alleged that between May and June 2022, Ngige corruptly received monetary gifts from NSITF contractors, including N38.65m from Cezimo Nigeria Limited through his campaign organisation, N55.003m from Zitacom Nigeria Limited via his scholarship scheme, and N26.13m from Jeff & Xris Limited.

The offences are said to be contrary to Sections 17(a) and 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

The EFCC, through its counsel, Sylvanus Tahir, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, urged the court to deny the bail application, arguing that the former minister had previously breached the terms of an administrative bail by failing to return his passport after being allowed to travel abroad for medical reasons.

The prosecution also cited the weight of the charges, noting that they could attract a minimum five-year prison term upon conviction. But he was challenged by the defence counsel.

Patrick Ikwueto, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), asked the court to grant bail to his client, describing the offences as bailable and stressing that the defendant was a well-known public figure who would not abscond.

Ikwueto (SAN) also raised concerns about Ngige’s health and argued that the correctional facility lacked adequate medical facilities to manage his condition. The court subsequently granted Ngige’s bail application ahead of trial next year.

In a statement after his bail, the former Minister of Labour and Productivity insisted he left a clean bill while in office. While thanking his friends, family and colleagues, Ngige stressed that no fraud was found in the petitions against him. According to him, his three decades of public service remain unblemished, including his tenure as the Governor of Anambra State.

“In all my years of over three decades of public service, including as Governor of a state, I have not been found wanting in the handling of public funds and use of my office.”

He clarified that the charges brought against him did not allude to embezzlement, misappropriation or theft of public funds.

Ngige, therefore, questioned how companies could have been given “unfair advantage” in a process over which ministers had no control.

“My hands are clean, and it will be interesting to see where and how these companies were allegedly given ‘unfair advantage’ in a process over which ministers neither participate in nor control,” he said.

The former minister argued that Permanent Secretaries, who serve as chairmen of Ministerial Tenders Boards, preside over such matters, adding that the five companies mentioned in the petitions were traditional contenders for contracts but often failed bids.

“The five companies mentioned have always competed like all others and, in many instances, failed to win bids. In some cases, as we now know, they were even disqualified for not meeting specific requirements,” he stated.