ok... I agree. He could have stolen that much or more, or he in fact did not steal anything. I m a lawyer and this issue is a legal issue. I was very actively involved in this matter, attending court as much as I could while the trial lasted. I must say I am terribly dissapointed with the EFCC and the prosecution because they did not link the allegations to Bode George one bit. They did not prove any of the allegations against Bode George. In fact, I thought the matter would be thrown out on a 'No-Case Submission' but it was never made.

So, technically and legally, he should have been left off the hook. EFCC was unable to show that he did anything wrong. Although they told the court that some things were not done rightly as due process was not followed in awarding some contracts during Bode George's tenure as Chairman of the NPA Board, they were unable to show that these illegalities were carried out by Bode George or the accused persons.

In fact, contracts at NPA are not usually awarded or graded by the Board. There is a Committee who handles that. The board only has to approve already awarded contracts, where there is the need. They have no business with splitting, grading, or awarding contracts to anybody.

The EFCC and the prosecution said this much during trial. They can not deny this. But his lordship said Bode George would be criminally liable for the acts of his subordinates and other Board members, since he was the Chairman of the Board and the bulk ended on his desk. I know that in law, there is no such thing as criminal 'vicarious liability'. But that is his lordship's judgement and the matter is on appeal.

If EFCC have anything against any person, let them come out with facts and proofs that will be judicially tenable. Criminal allegations are serious and cannot be proved by semantics or sentiments. They are proved by direct evidence, linking the accused to the crime in unmistakable manner. It is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'.

We want justice, not victimisation by 'public policy'.