Bobrisky, a controversial cross-dresser and socialite, whose real name is Idris Olanrewaju Okuneye, has taken legal action by filing a Notice of Appeal through his lawyer, Bimbo Kusanu, challenging his conviction on a four-count charge related to Naira abuse.
The appeal seeks to overturn the six-month imprisonment sentence handed down by Justice Abimbola Awogboro of the Federal High Court, Lagos, and instead proposes a fine of N50,000 for each of the charges against Bobrisky.
Despite pleading guilty to the charges brought by the EFCC, Bobrisky argues in his appeal that the trial court’s decision to impose the maximum sentence was unjust, especially considering his lack of prior criminal convictions and the availability of lesser sentencing options under the ACJA.
The appellant highlights his cooperation with the EFCC during the investigation and emphasizes that the severe sentence imposed does not align with the principles of fair and proportionate sentencing as outlined in the ACJA.
The trial judge made a legal and factual error by imposing the maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment on the appellant without the option of a fine, going against the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015.
The trial court’s decision to give the appellant the maximum sentence, despite no prior criminal record, disregarded the possibility of a lesser sentence as allowed by law.
The punishment imposed on the appellant by the trial court goes against the mandatory sentencing guidelines outlined in the law, resulting in a punitive measure.
The appellant has been a victim of a miscarriage of justice due to the severe sentence handed down by the trial court.
The trial court’s justification for the maximum punishment based on foreign perceptions of Naira abuse is flawed and does not align with the actual considerations that should have been taken into account.
The intention behind the Central Bank Act 2007, under which the appellant was charged, is to prevent Nigerians from tampering with Naira, not to cater to the views of foreign nationals on the matter.
The trial court overlooked the positive actions of the appellant, such as cooperating with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission during the investigation, and failed to consider these factors in the sentencing decision.
The trial court’s failure to exercise discretion judiciously has led to a miscarriage of justice against the appellant.
