Bobrisky Begs Court To Convert Imprisonment To N50,000 Fine

Bobrisky, convicted of abusing the naira, appeals his six-month imprisonment, seeking a N50,000 fine per count.

He argues against the severity of the sentence, citing his clean record and cooperation with the EFCC during the investigation.

Controversial figure Bobrisky, through his lawyer Bimbo Kusanu, has lodged an appeal against the six-month prison sentence handed to him by the Federal High Court in Lagos.

VerseNews gathered that he seeks to convert the imprisonment to a fine of N50,000 for each of the four counts of naira abuse.

Convicted on April 12, 2024, for spraying and mutilating the naira at a party, Bobrisky aims to challenge the severity of the sentence, citing his lack of prior criminal record and cooperation with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) during the investigation.

“The sentence of the lower court that imposed the maximum penalty of six months imprisonment without option of fine on the appellant, who is a first-time convict without a previous record of criminal conviction, is harsh.

In the appeal, “The learned trial judge erred in law and facts by his imposition of the maximum sentence of six months imprisonment terms against the appellant without the option of fine contrary to the provisions of Section 416(2) (d) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015 that prescribed the mandatory guidelines on the trial court on imposition of sentencing after criminal conviction of a first time offender as the appellant.

“is seeking an order setting aside the six months maximum imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant and in its place, an imposition of a fine in the sum of N50,000 on each of the counts against the appellant”.

“The trial court imposed the maximum sentence on the appellant, who has no previous record criminal of conviction, when there are options to impose a lesser sentence by the provisions of the ADCJA.

“The sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant is punitive contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law on sentencing.

“The appellant has suffered a miscarriage of justice by the maximum sentence imposed by the learned trial court.

“The reasons adduced by the learned trial court for the imposition of maximum punishment on the appellant, which is essentially on what foreigners think of abuse of naira, is perverse and is out of tune with the reality of what the trial court should have been considered to impose maximum punishment on the appellant.

“The intendment of the provisions of the Central Bank Act 2007 that the appellant was charged with is for Nigerians not to tamper with naira and not what nationals of foreign countries view about tampering with naira.

“The trial court did not consider the positive antecedent of the appellant, who did not waste the precious judicial resources of the trial court when he pleaded guilty to the charge. The appellant honoured the invitation of the respondent, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, on the first invitation during the investigation leading to the charge.

“The trial court failed to exercise his discretion judiciously and judicially in sentencing the appellant which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the appellant.”