“As has been rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, the offence of uttering is akin to the offence of forgery and the same elements of proof, as well as punishment, apply. Thus, in view of the earlier findings of this Court it is now established that the six documents in question, made up of the two documents purported to be from Saybolt Concremat in Brazil and the four documents purportedly evidencing the inspection operations of the trans-shipment between the vessels, M/T Overseas Limar and M/T Delphina, by Inspectorate Marine Services were forged, most of the ingredients of the offence of uttering of these documents have equally been established. I therefore adopt my findings under issues three and four above in respect of this issue. Indeed, to establish the offence of uttering, the prosecution must also prove that (a) the document/writing was false; and (b) the false document was knowingly and fraudulently uttered. This question of whether the Appellant knowingly and fraudulently uttered these false documents was also answered under the previous issues in this Judgment.
However, no harm will be done in reiterating them. The Criminal Code of Lagos State defines uttering to include – “using or dealing with, and attempting to use and deal with, and attempting to induce any person to use, deal with, or act upon the thing in question…” It is an indisputable fact that the Appellant, as the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Brila Energy Ltd, compiled and submitted the bundle of documents attached to the covering letter written under his hand, (at page 3 of Exhibit P1), for the sole purpose of claiming and being paid a subsidy for the importation of PMS from Brazil by the Federal Government of Nigeria. The Respondent adduced evidence through the officers of the following agencies: EFCC, Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) and the Debt Management office (DMO) which established that the subsidy calculated and paid to the Appellant and Brila Energy Ltd was based on the entire documents submitted by the Appellant, inclusive of these six forged documents. From the un-controverted evidence before the trial Court, the Appellant knowingly held out these false documents and presented them to the PPPRA as true in order to gain an advantage, to wit: to deceitfully claim an entitlement for the payment of subsidy for fuel that was not sourced, imported and supplied as claimed in the documents. The Appellant knew that the documents at pages 19, 22, 26, 27, 29 and 30 were forged, and yet he deliberately and intentionally presented them to the PPPRA, upon which the subsidy of N963, 796, 199.85k was paid by the Federal Government of Nigeria to Brila Energy Limited. The learned trial Judge was therefore right in her findings that the offence of uttering of the six documents in question was proved beyond reasonable doubt.”Per SANKEY, J.C.A. (Pp. 59-61, Paras. C-F); JUBRIL v. FRN (2018) LPELR-43993(CA)
