Category: Judiciary

By Lucy Osuizigbo-Okechukwu

Awka, April 21, 2026.

The Court of Appeal, Awka Division, has affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Chizoba Ede for armed robbery by an Anambra High Court.

In a judgment on June 15, 2022, Justice Victoria Nwoye found Ede guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging.

The prosecution said Ede and four accomplices, armed with firearms and offensive weapons, attacked a victim along Upper Iweka, Onitsha, while in transit.

During the attack, the victim was stabbed, suffered severe hand injuries, and was dispossessed of money and valuables.

The court heard the victim later spotted the suspects fleeing in a vehicle and raised an alarm, attracting attention from the driver and passersby.

Public intervention and local vigilante operatives led to Ede’s arrest, while other suspects escaped.

Following his arrest, Ede reportedly made confessional statements and led police to the gang’s hideout, where only the victim’s identity card was recovered.

“Based on the evidence presented, the trial court convicted and sentenced him accordingly,” the court held.

Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the verdict, citing inadequate legal representation and improper evaluation of evidence.

However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, ruling the trial court properly assessed the evidence and ensured fair hearing.

“The appellant’s right to fair hearing was not violated as he was adequately represented,” the court ruled.

The court consequently upheld the conviction and sentence.

Judgment

By Taiye Agbaje

Abuja, March 23, 2026.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, convicted and sentenced Chukwunyere Nwabuoku, former acting Accountant-General of the Federation (AGoF), to a 72-year jail term without an option of fine.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), through its lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, had been able to prove the nine-count money laundering charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Jutsice Omotosho, who convicted Nwabuoku in all the nine counts, sentenced him to eight years imprisonment in each of the counts, making a total of 72 years.

The judge, however, ordered that the counts shall run concurrently beginning from Monday, March 23.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Nwabuoku was admitted to a N500 million bail with two sureties in the like sum after he was arraigned on Jan. 15, 2025, on a nine-count amended charge.

The EFCC listed Nwabuoku as the sole defendant in the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/240/2024, which bordered on money laundering to the tune of N868 million.

In count one of the charge filed on Nov. 27, 2024, the EFCC alleged that Nwabuoku, alongside Temeeo Synergy Concept Limited (at large), Turge Global Investment Limited (at large), Laptev Bridge Limited, Arafura Transnational Afro Limited (at large), and other persons (all at large), conspired to convert funds.

The funds were said to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

The anti-graft agency said the offence was contrary to Section 18 of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011, as amended by Act No. 1 of 2012, and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

Nwabuoku was alleged to have perpetrated the act while serving as the director of Finance and Accounts in the Ministry of Defence between 2019 and 2021.

He was later appointed acting AGoF on May 20, 2022, under ex-President Muhammadu Buhari after Ahmed Idris was suspended as AGoF over alleged N80 billion fraud.

Nwabuoku, however, was removed in July 2022, a few weeks after assuming office.

Sylva Okolieaboh, a director at the Treasury Single Account (TSA) Department, replaced Nwabuoku as acting AGoF.

Okolieaboh’s appointment followed a report that Nwabuoku was under the EFCC’s radar over corruption allegations.

Delivering the judgment on Monday, Justice Omotosho said that in determining the charge, the court had one issue for determination.

“Whether the prosecution has established the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt to secure his conviction?” he said.

The judge earlier dismissed the argument of Nwabuoku’s lawyer, Norrison Quakers, SAN, on inadmissibility of his client’s three confessional statements.

Quakers had argued that the defendant’s statements were not voluntarily made and did not comply with the law.

But Justice Omotosho held that in challenging the admissibility of a confessional statement on the ground of involuntariness, the best time to raise the issue is at the stage of it being tendered in evidence by the prosecution, and not on appeal by way of counsel’s submissions.

The judge, who cited a previous case delivered by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, said if the counsel had raised an objection to the admissibility of the statement on the ground that it was not voluntarily made, the court would have conducted a trial-within-trial to determine the issue.

“At the point of tendering these statements, Exhibits PWT, PWV2 and Exhibit DWI were not objected to by defence counsel.

“This failure to raise the objections is deemed to be an admission that the statements were made voluntarily and thus raising same at this stage amounts to an afterthought.

“Consequently, this court is entitled to rely on the statements in the determination of this charge,” he ruled.

On the substantive issue, the judge said that the standard of proof is usually beyond reasonable doubt because criminal cases are a very serious specie of proceedings as the freedom and in some cases the life of the defendant is on the line if found guilty.

According to him, while the prosecution is not mandated to call a certain number of witnesses in proof of its case, it must call material witnesses to help it prove its case.

“The prosecution is not absolved of the duty placed on it by the law to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt even where the defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge, ” he said.

While reviewing the counts, the judge found that the anti-graft agency had been able to prove all the ingredients essential in each of the counts to convict the defendant.

“The defendant as the Director of Finance at the Federal Ministry of Defence had monies entrusted to him.

“Monies meant for the security and defence of the nation. Instead, the defendant converted the monies to his use.

“The defendant expertly put the money through proxy into his portfolio account with Quantum Zenith Securities to buy and trade securities.

“This is a classic example of what money laundering does. It is the putting of dirty money into legitimate business which helps to clean the money.

“The idea behind proving a predicate offence comes from what money laundering itself means.

“As a global phenomenon, money laundering means cleaning money from unlawful source to make it look clean and legal.

“Money laundering is a global scourge that affects countries worldwide, Nigeria not being an exception.

“It has been described as the washing of illegitimate money in a bid to make it appear clean or legitimate.

“It involves the process of transforming the proceeds of crime into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets.

“Hence, any action or transaction emanating from legally obtained money cannot ground a charge of money laundering, let alone result in conviction for the offence,” he said.

Justice Omotosho observed that Nwabuoku, in Exhibit DW1, had earlier stated that the monies paid into the four corporate accounts were for secret operations.

“However, the evidence before the court all show that they were rather used for the personal use of the defendant, ‘ he said.

The judge also observed that prior to 2019, the balance in the defendant’s account from Exhibit PWG was less than N3 million but suddenly from August 2019, his portfolio grew and it began being credited with tens of millions of naira to purchase more securities.

“The timing is quite curious as it coincides with the timeline of the alleged offences.

“From the accounts of MDavi Limited (PWE), the sum of about N160 million was credited to the account of the defendant with Quantum Zenith Securities for the purchase of securities.

“All these evidence clearly proves the guilt of the defendant.

“Consequently, the defendant is convicted of count 9 of the charge,” he ruled.

The judge further observed that the evidence of the 9th prosecution witness that Nwabuoku voluntarily refunded N220 million during investigation was not controverted by the defence.

According to the judge, the defendant’s act of diverting funds meant for other purposes to his own use is quite appalling and revealing.

“This is even more concerning as it involves a very critical ministry such as the Ministry of Defence.

“These monies were probably meant to improve the security situation in the country. Unfortunately, they were siphoned into private pockets.

“I must say the defendant was ingenious in trying to hide the source of these funds by using shell companies and using friends and associates.

“However, the diligent investigation of the prosecution was able to link him to the said funds.

“This court must commend the prosecution for being detailed in its investigation and for present a coherent and cogent case against the defendant.

“The defendant on the other hand is condemned for greedily converting public funds to his own use.

“In final analysis, the prosecution has successfully established the nine counts charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

“The defendant is hereby convicted as charged,” he declared.

Responding, lawyer who appeared for the prosecution, Ogechi Ujam, thanked the judge for the time and industry put in to deliver the judgment.

She said the ptosecution had no previous criminal record of the convict.

Justice Omotosho then asked the lawyer what the law says about the punishment of the offence.

Ujam, who cited Section 15(3) of the Money Laundering Act, 2011, said it provided for not less than seven years or not more than 14 years jail term in each of the count.

Isidore Udenko, who represented the former AGoF, pleaded for leniency.

“My lord, the defendant is a first offender. He is a man that had served this country for 35 years at the highest level.

“He has shown remorse and he has an aged mother as the only son.

“In showing remorse, he has refunded part of the money to the prosecution and throughout the trial, he was diligent and did not offend the court,” Udenko begged.

The judge said the Supreme Court had also decided that the defendant himself should be allowed to make allocution (plead for mercy) why the court should not give the maximum sentence.

Responding, Nwabuoku also begged the court to temper justice with mercy.

“My Lord, I have served for 35 years and retired. In all these years, I have been diligent.

“It is not as if I converted any money but I have returned some from my shares.
My lord, I will plead for leniency,” he said.

Nwabuoku, however, pledged to refund the remaining part of the money.

“But you said at a point that the refund was not coming from, ” the judge responded to the defendant’s plea to refund the remaining part of the money.

“What I meant was that the refund was not voluntary; I was compelled,” he said.

But his lawyer suddenly cut in and said: “My lord, what the defendant is saying is that he is remorseful and whatever remains, he is ready to refund.”

“At this level, we have gone beyond issues of refund,” the judge said.

The EFCC lawyer then urged the court to sentence the convict in accordance with the law and to order the forfeiture of the property.

Justice Omotosho, after listening to the lawyers and the defendant, sentenced Nwabuoku to eight years imprisonment in each of the nine counts which shall bring cuncunrrently.

“The sentence shall start to run from today the 23 Day of March, 2026 and shall run concurrently.

“The prosecution is at liberty to file formal application for forfeiture of applicable assets and properties,” the judge ruled.

The judge said the EFCC should filed the application for forfeiture of the affected property and that the defence would respond accordingly before a final order is made.

“You can bring the post-conviction application so that the defence too can respond appropriately because he is entitled to fair hearing and we will ensure that,” he said.

NAN reports that on Jan. 31, 2025, the 1st prosecution witness (PW-1), Eucharia Ezeodi, a Zenith Bank Plc staff member and PW-2, Felix Nweke, a director in the federal civil service, gave their testimonies against the defendant.

The anti-graft agency, however, closed its case after calling nine witnesses to establish its case against Nwabuoku.

Justice Omotosho had, on Nov. 13, 2025, dismissed Nwabuoku’s no-case submission, which he opted for after the prosecution closed its case.

The judge, in a ruling, held that a prima facie case had been made out against Mr Nwabuoku by the EFCC to warrant him to enter his defence.

Nwabuoku, who opened his defence on Feb. 2, prayed the court to acquit and discharge him of the alleged N868.46 million fraud case preferred against him by the anti-graft agency.

Led in evidence by his lawyer, Mr Quakers, the former AGoF denied being a signatory to some companies allegedly linked to him.

Nwabuoku had, in February 2025, opted for a plea bargain but later changed his mind.

The ex-AGoF was earlier arraigned with Felix Nweke, who worked under him in the Federal Ministry of Defence.

Both defendants, on Oct. 14, 2024, equally opted for a plea bargain agreement with the EFCC, which was eventually not carried through.

The commission, subsequently, amended the charge and listed Nwabuoku as the sole defendant, with Nweke as one of its witnesses.

Justice actors champion Improved multidoor courts system to resolve conflicts

Flowerbud News/ The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, overruled Nnamdi Kanu on his argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him on alleged terrorism charge.

Justice James Omotosho held that issues raised by Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to challenge the court jurisdiction, had already been decided by the court.

Justice Omotosho, who urged Kanu to make use of the opportunity that the constitution gives him under Section 36 to defend himself, then ordered him to enter his defence.

The judge then adjourned the trial until Oct. 24 for the IPOB leader to open his defence.

Earlier when the matter was called, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, announced his appearance for the prosecution.

However, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, who had been representing the IPOB leader, stood up and told the court that he and his team were only in court out of the respect for the court.

Agabi said they were in court to formally announce their withdrawal from further participating in the trial.

He explained that the reason for their decision “is because the defendant has taken this case back from us and we respect that.”

He gave the names of the other senior advocates, who are also withdrawing from the case to include Onyechi Ikpeazu, Joseph Akubo, Paul Erokoro, Emeka Etiaba and one other.

Following Agabi’s announcement, Justice James Omotosho turned to Kanu, who was in the dock, for his response.

Kanu confirmed disengaging all his lawyers and told the court that he was willing and ready to conduct his case by himself.

Justice Omotosho then directed that other members of the defendant’s legal team, who were in court, except the SANs, should vacate the courtroom immediately, a directive they promptly complied with.

The judge then turned to Kanu who was in the dock, and asked him to open his case.

In response, Kanu commenced by indicating his intention to make an oral submission.

Justice Omotosho granted the defendant’s application despite opposition from Awomolo.

Kanu then said that he would not open his defence as ordered by the court because he was questioning the jurisdiction of the court to try him.

“This is a jurisdictional issue that goes to the heart of this case,” he said.

He hinged his objection to the court’s jurisdiction on four grounds.

The IPOB leader, in his first ground, argued that the Federal Government, through the prosecution, was in contempt of a Court of Appeal judgment, which he said ordered his acquittal.

Kanu argued that for the court to grant the prosecution audience, it (the prosecution) must first comply with the said Court of Appeal judgment.

He said the second ground was that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and and Customs and Excise Act, under which the charge against him was brought, are repealed laws.

Giving the third ground, the IPOB leader claimed to have been denied fair hearing.

He said his continued detention in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) had denied him the opportunity for adequate consultation with his lawyers to enable him prepare for his defence.

He hinged the fourth ground on his claim that the medical report submitted to the court by a medical team empanelled by the president of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), which certified him fit to stand trial, was forged.

Kanu denied being examined by any medical team and that his blood and urine samples were never obtained for analysis.

He, therefore, urged the court to declare the proceedings void and order his immediate release in line with the Court of Appeal judgment.

Reacting, Awomolo said Kanu deserved no formal response from the prosecution because all the allegations he made ought to be put down in the form of a sworn affidavit and effectively demonstrated to enable the other party respond appropriately.

The senior lawyer faulted Kanu’s claim that a Court of Appeal’s decision acquitted him, arguing that the said judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on Dec. 15, 2023.

“The judgments of the Supreme Court that was given on December 15, 2023 has set aside the judgment they are claiming discharged him.

“If he has a preliminary objection he should file it and demonstrate all his claims,” Awomolo added.

The prosecuting lawyer also faulted Kanu’s claim that his right to fair hearing was breached.

Awomolo argued that Kanu’s claim that the medical report was forged was an indictment on the senior lawyers, who were in his legal team, who saw the report and found no fault in it.

He prayed the judge to determine all the issues that Kanu raised in his submission when delivering the final judgment.

Justice Omotosho held that when the medical report was bought up in court on Oct. 16, he sought the views of lawyers to both parties, who did not raise any objection to the report.

The judge said since the report had been admitted by the court, acted on same and made decisions based on it, the court could no longer go back on it.

He declared that all the decisions taken by the court, based on the medical report, stand.

The judge further observed that all the issues raised by Kanu were also substantially raised in the no-case submission which the court declined in a ruling delivered on Sept. 26.

“On the 26th of September, 2025, I considered those issues and held that he has a case to answer.

“This was to enable him exercise his right to fair hearing to make his case,” the judge said.

Justice Omotosho recalled that in the spirit of fair hearing, he vacated the courtroom on Wednesday from 9am to 2pm to enable Kanu and his lawyers have a private consultation session.

He said this was despite the absence of evidence to support Kanu’s claim that his conversation was being secretly recorded by the DSS whose custody he is being detained.

The judge said although all the issues raised by Kanu’s submission had previously been determined by the court, the defendant would not be foreclosed.

According to the judge, the defendant can still raise them at the final written address.

Justice Omotosho then proceeded to call on Kanu to open his defence and overruled him when he attempted to insist on his objection to the court’s jurisdiction.

“I call upon and appeal to the defendant to open his defence.

“I beg the defendant, in the name of the Almighty God, to comport himself and conduct his defence.

“This is the opportunity that the constitution gives him under Section 36.

“It is a right that he can exercise or waive either expressly or by conduct.

“I beg and I appeal to the defendant to make use of the opportunity, given him by the constitution, to put in his defence, except he choses to waive it either expressly or by conduct,” the judge said.

At that point, Ikpeazu, who had earlier withdrew his appearance alongside Agabi, stood up to intervene.

The lawyer drew the attention of the court to the fact that their (Kanu’s lawyers’) withdrawal took effect on the morning of Thursday.

Ikpeazu prayed the court to grant Kanu few time to gather his thoughts and compose himself for the task ahead.

Taking a hint from what Ikpeazu said, Kanu said: “In the exercise of my right, I wish to state on record that I have not had the opportunity to prepare for my defence.

“I only had three hours yesterday in this courtroom.

“Section 36 of the Constitution allows me to be given adequate facilities to defend myself. My lord, I need time,” he said.

Awomolo did not object, following which Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until Oct. 24 for Kanu to open his defence.

The judge said the opportunity given the defendant to conduct his defence began to run from Thursday.

The judge equally disclosed that he had signed the witness summons sought by Kanu and that they are available for him to collect and serve on the said witnesses as required.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, in a motion filed on Oct. 21, listed the names of prominent Nigerians he intended to call as witnesses.

NAN

By Taiye Olayemi

The Nigerian Insurers Association (NIA) says it has approached the court to clarify the legal powers of the House Committee on Capital Market and Institutions.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the House, on Monday, began probing 25 insurers over alleged non-remittance of multi-billion-naira revenues owed to the Federal Government.

Mrs Bola Odukale, NIA’s Director-General, said the Committee’s inquiry concerns financial reporting, claims payment, premium remittance, and issuance of policies by certain member companies.

She stated, in a statement on Tuesday, that the NIA and the affected insurers acted strictly on legal advice by their counsel in deciding to seek judicial intervention.

“All actions taken by the NIA and its members regarding the Committee’s invitations were based entirely on legal advice received from the Association’s Solicitors.

“It was on firm instruction from legal counsel that we resolved to approach the courts,” Odukale said.

She said the aim is to obtain judicial guidance on the legality and constitutional boundaries of the Committee’s intervention in such matters.

The court action questions whether the Committee’s involvement encroaches on the duties of statutory regulators like NAICOM, SEC, NGX, FRC, NDPC, and NITDA.

Odukale warned that this raises concerns about legislative overreach and potential violations of Nigeria’s constitutional separation of power.