Justice I.U Bello of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court has discharged and acquitted six persons charged of conspiracy and attempted murder of late Director-General, National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, Dr. (Mrs.) Dora Akunyili.

The accused persons are, Francis Okoye, Emmanuel Nnakwe, Marcel Nnakwe, Emeka Orjiakora, Christopher Mbah, and Olisaemeka Igbokwe. 
The state had filed four-count charge on eighth persons, the 7th accused person had died sometime in 2005 while the 8th accused person was discharged by the Supreme Court. 
‎
Part of the charge reads: “That you (1) Francis C. Okoye (a.k.a. Ebubedike; (2) Emmanuel Nnamdi Nnakwe (a.k.a. Aboy); (3) Marcel Nnakwe; (4) Emeka Orjiakor; (5) Christopher Okwara Mbah (a.k.a. Persus); (6) Olisaemeka Igbokwe (a.k.a. Holy War); (7) Chukwuka Ezeukwu (a.k.a. Let’s Go); (8) Jude Ugwu (a.k.a. Agada) on or between October, 2001 to December 2003 at different places in the Federal Capital Territory and Anambra State agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act to wit: cause the death of Dr. (Mrs.) Dora Akunyili, Director-General, National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (D.G, NAFDAC) and that the said act was attempted to be done pursuant to an agreement thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 97 of the Penal Code. 
They pleaded not guilty to all the charges preferred against them.

It would be recalled that the accused persons filed no case submission. The 2nd and 3rd accused persons questioned the jurisdiction of the court to entertain counts 3 and 4 of the charge. 
T
he no case submission was upheld by the FCT High Court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, but set aside the aspect of the ruling which declined jurisdiction to entertain counts 3 and 4 of the charge. 
However, Justice Bello in his judgment dated October 20, 2015 in suit no: FCT/HC/CR/128/2004 declared that, “On the charge of conspiracy for instance, the prosecution could not have been successful in the face of exhibit 18(n), a manifest from MTN tendered before the court by the prosecution itself and indeed exhibit 20 equally a similar manifest tendered by the defence, both intended to establish any possible transaction or controvert any such transaction as stated by PW3 between him and 2nd accused through phone conversation.

“It turned not to be falsehood, this rendering the PW3 as unreliable witness and he is so branded. And with that position, the prosecution has failed to discharge onus of proving the offence of conspiracy as charged. Accordingly, the accused persons are discharged and acquitted on that count.”

The judge also held that the prosecution was not able to pin the accused persons with the degree of certainty at the scene of the crime and obviously the commission of the crime at the scene. 

“Consequently, failure to investigate the alibi as raised by the accused persons and in particular 2nd accused, who had tendered exhibits D1-D7 representing his travel documents is fatal to the case of the prosecution’s case.