$130 million fraud: Court schedules hearing of Rivers, Saipem case

A High Court, sitting in Port Harcourt, has scheduled today for a hearing on an alleged $130 million fraud between the Rivers State Government and Saipem Nigeria Contracting Limited.

The case with Suit No: PHC/3106/CR/2021 includes Rivers State Government (prosecution) and Saipem SPA (first defendant), Saipem Contracting Nigeria Limited (second defendant), Walter Peviana (third defendant), Kelechi Sinteh Chinakwe (fourth defendant), Giandomenico Zingali (fifth defendant), Vitto Testaguzza (sixth defendant) and Davide Anelli (seventh defendant).

The government of Rivers state had sued the defendants over an alleged conspiracy to cheat and with the intent to defraud the Rivers State government of $130 million, being advanced payment for the construction of OCGT power plant in Port Harcourt.

At the previous hearing, on January 18, the prosecution counsel, Godwin Obla, had argued that the first and second defendants (Saipem SPA and Saipem Nigeria Contracting Limited, respectively) were not represented by anybody in any capacity.

He prayed the court to record that the defendants, not having been represented by their authorised representatives, put them (first and second defendants) in the category of persons that should be tried in absentia.

However, counsel to the first, second, third and sixth defendants counsel, Odein Ajumogobia, had drawn the court’s attention to the fact that he had preliminary objection to the continuation of the trial.

Ajumogobia told the court that an objection was filed on January 31, and served on Tuesday, February 1, adding that the law states that the prosecution has about seven days to respond.

He maintained that there was no order of court abridging that time; but, the first and second defendants’ counsel insisted on court proceeding with the hearing.

He also argued the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case.

Meanwhile, the presiding judge, Justice Okogbule Gbasam, had earlier admitted the submission of the state counsel and ruled that the first and second defendants would be tried in absentia.