Crusaderhotnews
_By Melanated Ovienzwoba_
Let’s give credit where it’s due.
After days of public pressure and questions, the Edo State Government and its representatives have finally released what they call the signed copy of the $250 million MoU with EuroAfrica CCI.
That’s progress, because if there was nothing to hide, there’d be no need for this sudden wave of “clarifications.” But if this is damage control, then the “proof” they’ve provided just deepens the mystery.
So let’s look at this MoU carefully.
1. Two Versions of the Same MoU
The first version displayed on Arise TV only had Edo State Government signatures:
• Umar Musa Ikhilor, Secretary to the State Government
• Dr. Loretta Oduware Ogboro-Okor, as witness
Now, Dr. Loretta Oduware Ogboro-Okor signed as “Witness.”
But in legal practice, a witness is usually a neutral third party, not a party directly involved in promoting or negotiating the agreement.
She’s DG of Edo Diaspora Agency, already mentioned inside the MoU as part of the machinery. That’s conflict of role; she can’t be both a party representative and a neutral witness.
Then, no investor signature. No EuroAfrica CCI.
But, a few days later, another version has surfaced, suddenly featuring a new last page with a scribbled signature claiming to be from Dr. Kingsley Obasohan, the supposed Director-General of EuroAfrica CCI.
So, which version is real? Why didn’t Arise TV, the platform used by Edo officials themselves, show this “complete” version in the first place?
Why did Arise TV only have a version without it? This suggests after-the-fact insertion or tampering.
That’s not transparency. That’s patchwork.
2. Different Dates, Different Days, Different Stories
Edo side signed on 22/09/2025.
EuroAfrica CCI’s supposed signatory signed on 23/09/2025.
Now pause and think: when two parties sign an MoU, they normally do it together, in the same room or through a shared digital platform, with timestamps that align.
Here, the dates don’t match, and the “investor’s” signature page appears to have been added later.
So, was this document really signed in Glasgow, as Loretta claimed, or was it “completed” anachronistically after the controversy broke?
3. Blank Date on the Cover Page
On the cover, it says:
“This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is entered into on this ___ day of ______, 2025.”
Blank. No date.
If a $250 million agreement was truly signed in Glasgow, why was the date not filled in before signing?
That’s basic, even secondary school students filling out a rental agreement know better.
4. The Watermark: ‘Scanned with Mobile Scanner’
This might sound trivial, but it’s not.
That’s not just sloppy. That’s a smoking gun.
It proves the last page wasn’t part of the original document; it was added later to “complete” the MoU after the scandal broke.
A $250 million foreign investment MoU, supposedly signed by a state government and an international chamber of commerce, was not scanned using official government equipment.
It was scanned with a phone app.
The watermark literally says “Scanned with Mobile Scanner.”
So we must ask:
Where is the original?
Why is the only available copy a poorly scanned version from someone’s phone?
Don’t they have scanners in the Secretary to the State Government’s office?
This isn’t how official state documents are handled, unless someone is desperately trying to piece something together for optics.
5. Font and Formatting Discrepancy on the Last Page
This is where it gets forensic. Take a good look at that final page, the one with the new signature.
The font is different.
The text alignment is off.
And it sits oddly apart from the rest of the document.
The first five pages are set in Arial, size 22–23.
But the newly added last page, the one with EuroAfrica CCI’s supposed signature, is in Arial 24–24.5.
It doesn’t read like a continuation; it looks like a page added later to “complete” the MoU after people started asking questions about the missing EuroAfrica CCI signature.
This is what forensic document examiners call post-execution insertion.
6. The MoU Itself Admits: It’s Not a Deal
Even if we take the document at face value, it completely contradicts the story Edo Government told.
Page 4, Section 5 reads:
“This MoU is not intended to be legally binding but serves as a statement of intent…”
That’s right, it’s not binding.
So how did “MoU of Intent” suddenly become “$250 million investment deal signed” on the official Edo Government page and the Federal Ministry of Information’s website?
That’s not semantics, Aunty Loretta. That’s deliberate misrepresentation.
7. Amateur Drafting and Vague Promises
For a document supposedly worth $250 million:
• There are typos like “manufacturers,investors” (no spacing).
• Redundant wording like “USD $250 million (USD).”
• No project details. No financiers. No breakdown of the $250M.
The commitments are generic, agriculture, mining, renewable energy, skills training, the same recycled talking points from every unfulfilled MoU since 1999.
8. Lack of Pagination / Initials
No page numbers (“Page 1 of 7,” etc.).
No initials at the bottom of each page by both parties.
For multi-page contracts, this is standard to prevent tampering. Without pagination, any page can be swapped or added later (exactly what happened here).
9. No Legal Clauses or Specifics
No:
• Governing law clause (e.g., “This MoU shall be governed by the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”).
• Dispute resolution mechanism beyond a vague “amicable consultation.”
• Arbitration body or jurisdiction (e.g., ICC Paris, London Court of Arbitration, or Nigerian courts).
For a document claiming $250M investment, this is shocking.
10. Wrong Structure of Obligations (Na here be the koko)
Notice how Edo’s commitments are long and detailed, including providing an enabling environment, offering tax incentives, and providing land, among others.
Meanwhile, EuroAfrica CCI’s commitment is literally just one line:
“Invest the sum of USD $250 million into Edo State over 3–5 years.”
No breakdown, no source of funds, no timeline, no escrow, no financing structure. For a $250M project, this is essentially wishful thinking.
Edo State Government said it “secured a $250 million investment deal.”
Now we see a document that:
• Has two versions,
• Different signing dates,
• A blank date on the cover,
• Different fonts,
• A mobile phone watermark,
• And admits it’s not binding.
This isn’t a $250M deal.
It’s a $250M drama.
If this MoU is genuine, then it deserves a Guinness World Record as the only “$250 million foreign investment deal” in history signed on two different days, scanned on a phone, and still called “binding” by a government that clearly didn’t read it.
Edo people, the pressure is working, but the lies are cracking.
Keep asking questions.
Keep demanding answers.
Because truth is not semantics.
Truth is truth.
And this, right here, is pure deception, written, signed, and scanned on a mobile device.
0 Comments