Tag: Court

 

,,,,,Orders them to leave Nigeria within 6 days

The Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted 21 foreign hackers and ordered each of them to pay the sum of N1 million.

Justice Ekerete Akpan’s ruling followed the convicts’ plea bargain deal with the Nigerian Police Force, the prosecuting agency.

The 21 foreigners were part of the 109 defendants currently being prosecuted by the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police on allegations bordering on high-level cybercrime, money laundering and activities threatening national security.

Justice Akpan also ordered the convicts to leave the shores of Nigeria within six days of the ruling.

The judge ordered that all the gadgets used in the commission of the crimes shall be forfeited to the Federal Government.

The affected 21 defendants include Yang Yang (M), 33 years; Li Xiao Fen (M), 41 years; Zheng Peng Zhan (M), 28; Shu Huan (M), 20; Jupanpan (M), 25; Feng Guo (M), 29; Zhao Yifan (M), 31; Mahunan (M), 26; Wang Yi Bo (M), 24; Chen Yan Qi (M), 26 and Shi Hao Jie (M), 28 years, who were represented in court by Linda Ikpeazu.

Julius Mba appeared for Xiejang Bing (M), 29 years; Zheng Jian Feng (M); Zheng Peng Fei (M), 32; Wei Tang (M), 32; Wang Hao (M), 27; Cheng Xing (M), 30; Yang Xu Gung (M), 27; Zhu Jiu Hui (M), 28; Xhou Kia Lai (M), 28 and Tue Xue Fie (F), 21.

Ikpeazu had announced appearance for 3rd, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 20th, 24th, 50th, 53rd and 56th defendants, while Mba appeared for the 10th , 37th, 45th, 48th, 49th, 51st, 54th, 55th, 57th and 59th defendants respectively.

The lead prosecuting lawyer was A.A. Egwu.

Delivering the ruling, the judge said: “after the defendants entered the plea bargain agreement without being forced, I hereby convict you as charged.”

He held that the sentence shall be based on the parties’ agreement of N1 million fine each, against each of the defendants which shall be paid before their release.

“They shall depart the country within six working days,” he declared.

When the judge asked the lawyers if the convicts had paid the N1 million, Ikpeazu said: “My lord, we are going to pay in the next five minutes.”

Justice Akpan then adjourned the matter until Oct. 22 and Oct. 23 for continuation of trial of the remaining defendants.

The I-G had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/599/2024, sued the 109 foreigners and were arraigned on six counts.

The defendants, who include nationals from China, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, had pleaded not guilty to the counts and were remanded in correctional centres.

Justice Akpan had, on Nov. 29, 2024, admitted them to a N1 billion bail with five sureties each.

The judge, who granted them bail, directed that the five sureties must have a landed property worth N200, 000 million each.

Justice Akpan directed that the sureties must deposit the original and verified documents of their landed property with the deputy registrar of the court.

The judge also directed the sureties to deposit their international passports.

While the male defendants were remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre, the court held that the female defendants should be kept at Keffi Correctional Centre in Nasarawa State pending the perfection of their bail terms.

The defendants, who had met their bail terms, were, in 2024, arrested by the police.

They were apprehended in their residence at Plot 1906, Cadestral Zone 807, Katampe District of Abuja, where they were said to be engaging in cybercrime by allegedly promoting “a fraudulent and unregistered gaming platform.”

In the six-count charge, the foreigners were charged with cybercrime, money laundering and unlawfully residing in Nigeria, etc.

In one of the counts, they were alleged to have aided, abetted, conspired among themselves “to commit an offence, to wit; cybercrime.”

They were said to have commited the offence contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015 (As Amended, 2024).

They were also alleged to have accessed a computer network and input with the intention that such inauthentic data will be considered or acted upon as If they were authentic or genuine.

The offence is said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 13 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015 (As Amended, 2024).

Again, they were alleged to have removed “from Nigeria proceeds generated from operating a fraudulent and unregistered gambling platforms.

“These platforms are 9f.com, c2.top, 8pg.top and you thereby commit money laundering, contrary to and punishable under Section 18 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”

The defendants were also accused of entering “the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a business permit of 30 days duration and failed to leave the Nigerian territory at the expiration of the said permit.

The offence is contrary to Section 4 (2) and punishable under Section 44 (1) (c) of the Immigration Act 2015.”

 

A Benue State High Court sitting in Otukpo has dismissed a suit seeking a 500 million naira damages against Rockbridge Construction Limited over its alleged hazardous quarrying activities in a community in Benue State.

Justice G.A. Omale, in a judgment, held that the quality and quantum of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs was not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to sustain the reliefs claimed.

Three aggrieved indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of Ohimini Local Government Council in Benue State had sued Rockbridge Construction Ltd and Chief Bernard Ejembi for himself and on behalf of Alaglanu Clan/Settlement in Ohimini local government as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The plaintiffs; Adoga Michael, Aiko Aboje and Frank Adigwu, through their Counsel, P.A Omengala Esq. had filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of the State.

They said they are farmers and indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in Oglewu District of Ohimini local government and resident in the said community.

They said they are also the youth leaders of the community and have the mandate and the authorisation of the entire community to maintain the action on their behalf and against the named defendants.

They sought the sum of N500 million jointly and severally against the defendants “being general damages for the environmental pollution, damage to buildings/structures, general inconveniences and associated health hazard occasioned by the activities of the 1st defendant in connivance with the 2nd defendant.”

In the writ of summons dated October 28, 2022, they also sought an order compelling the defendants to give effect to the recommendations of the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) vide REF NO: NESREA/BNS/RCC/53/25 dated the 26th January, 2017.

They sought an order compelling the company to suspend further quarrying activities in Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in Oglewu District of Ohimini local government of Benue State, pending full compliance with the recommendation of NESREA vide its report of 26th January, 2017.

But Rockbridge Construction Limited, through its lead counsel, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP, urged the court to dismiss the suit.

The company, in its final written address, argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the grounds that issues relating to mines, minerals and quarrying are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Also in its statement of defence dated November 30, 2022, and filed by Ekpenyong, the company denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs.

The company argued that by a letter dated October 7, 2022, the elders of the community had withdrawn their support from the plaintiffs, stating that “the plaintiffs do not represent their interest.”

It stated that the elders had maintained that the community would continue to enjoy good relationship with the company.

It further argued that contrary to the contention of the plaintiffs, the company’s quarrying activities at the site had no negative effect and has not caused any hardship to the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Village because the site is far from the village.

According to the company, the 1st defendant has been carrying out quarrying activities at the site for close to 17 years and if its quarrying activities have been adversely affected the plaintiffs, they would not have waited till after 17 years to complain.

It insisted that its quarrying activities have no hazardous effect in the area and is conducted in line with international best practices.

Besides, the company argued that it was not privy to the plaintiffs’ community letter of complaint to the Federal Mines Officer, Mines Inspectorate Department, Makurdi.

Rockbridge Construction faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that NESREA carried out an investigation on its quarrying activities and returned with a damning verdict against it when there is a subsisting Environmental Audit Certificate issued by NESREA to it.

Chief Ejembi, in his final written address filed by his lawyer, Sunday Ayegba Esq., prayed the court to resolve the three issues raised in the suit in favour of the defendants and dismiss the suit.

In his deposition on oath, Ejembi, who said he is the Alaglanu clan head and resides at Alaglanu-Oglewu Community, averred that the elders of Awulema Community denied any involvement in the letter of pre-action served on the company and the subsequent filing of the present case.

He said they wrote a letter dated 7th October, 2022, wherein the elders stated that they were not in agreement with the plaintiffs’ letter of pre-action.

He said that the elders maintained in the letter that they were in good relationship with the company.

Ejembi said the plaintiffs do not have their residences within the community to suffer any form of inconveniences to his knowledge.

Besides, he said that the quarrying and crushing site was a reserved area of land by Alaglanu Community for quarrying activities since the year 1960 and the site had existed as such and in use by several road construction companies and stone breaking companies.

He urged the court to strike out his name from the suit since no cause of action was established against him.

Delivering the Judgment on June 30, 2025, and a certified true copy of it made available to newsmen on Monday in Abuja, Justice Omale overruled the company’s argument that it was only the Federal High Court that had the jurisdiction to decide the matter.

“I have carefully perused the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs and in my humble view, their claim is founded on Tort.

“The question now is, does the Federal High Court, have jurisdiction in matters founded on Tort?

“There is nowhere in the constitution or any other enactment the Federal High Court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to determine cases founded on tortious offences notwithstanding the parties involved.

“In my view, this is one of the limitations in the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court”

“By the provision of Section 271(1), the State High Court has the jurisdiction to determine matter as it relates to civil rights and obligations of citizens.

“This leg of the objection by the defence counsel fails and it is hereby overruled,” the judge said.

Justice Omale also resolved the argument that the plaintiffs’ case was caught up by the provision of Section 18 of the Benue State Limitation Law Cap 98, Laws of Benue State, 2004, against the defendants.

The judge also discountenanced with Ekpenyong’s submission that the company was not sued in its registered named, having filed his defence in the same name.

“This is because he is deemed to have waived his right and is therefore estopped from contending the contrary,” he said.

Justice Omale, however, struck out the name of Chief Bernard Ejembi, the 2nd defendants, from the suit.

The judge agreed with his counsel’s argument that there was no cause of action established against Ejembi notwithstanding that he was sued in a representative capacity.

“I am satisfied that the 2nd defendant ought not to have been joined in the plaintiffs’ claim,” he said

The judge held that the plaintiffs failed to offer credible evidence to demonstrate Exhibit D, which was the NESREA Report they presented which itemised certain steps the agency directed the company to comply with within 14 days.

The judge, however, agreed with the company that it had complied with the environmental standards going by its Exhibit D1 tendered which was the Environmental Audit Certificate issued on April 5, 2022 by NESREA.

“NESREA is the body authorised by law to issue Exhibit D1. In my humble view, Exhibit D1 is a reliable and strong evidence of compliance with Environmental Standards by the defendant (Company).

“Exhibit D1 has not been impeached before me and it is a reliable evidence in favour of the defendant that it is in full compliance with the Environmental Standard prescribed by law.

“In my view, Reliefs B and C in the plaintiffs’ claim can no longer be granted in view of Exhibit D1.”

The judge also discountenanced the arguments of the plaintiffs on the grounds that no documentary evidence, including a medical report, was tendered before the court to prove that they had suffered losses with respect to the quarrying activities of the company.

“If plaintiffs have medical report to show that they suffered health issues as a result of the activities of the company, why withholding it from the court?

“I hold that the plaintiffs deliberately withheld evidence which if tendered would have been detrimental to their case,” he said, citing a previous Supreme Court decision.

According to the judge, the law is settled that it is the duty of court to consider the evidence produced before it and never to proceed to indulge in speculation as to what might have happened.

“A judge cannot substitute his own supposition for the testimony of witnesses given on oath before him.

“Cases must be determined based on law and facts since sentiments have no place in judicial deliberation.”

The judge also agreed with Ekpenyong’s argument that the evidence of an expert was necessary to establish that it was the quarrying activities of the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiffs, their buildings and farms as well as the other members of the community.

His words: “The law is settled that in a case predicated on the tort of nuisance, it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish particular, direct and substantial damage in order to succeed.

“The law is equally settled that in a claim anchored on the tort of negligence, the plaintiffs must adduce evidence in proof of every material issues, whether or not the defendant offers any evidence in rebuttal and the failure to do so vitiates the plaintiffs’ claim.”

“The law is that in an action of this nature, damages must be proved.

“Since the measure of damages in an action for negligence Is founded on the principle of restititio in intergrum, there must be sufficient credible evidence to justify the exercise of the discretion of the court in favour of the plaintiffs.

“From all that I have said, it is my humble view that the quality and quantum of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs is not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to sustain the reliefs claimed.

“The plaintiffs have failed to prove their case with credible evidence as required by law.

“The claim of the plaintiffs fails and it is accordingly dismissed.”

 

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, on Wednesday, said the judiciary is committed to effective prosecution of terrorism and atrocity-related cases as part of the efforts at dismantling the climate of impunity that emboldened such crimes.

Kekere-Ekun stated this at the inauguration of the “Building the Capacity of the Nigerian Judicial Sector to Prosecute, Defend and Adjudicate Terrorism and Atrocity Cases” project in Abuja.

“The judiciary, by delivering fair, impartial and timely decisions, sends a clear message that justice will be done and that no one is above the law,” she said.

She restated the commitment of the judiciary to justice, accountability and national unity amidst the increasing rate of terrorism and atrocity in the country.

The CJN said that the project was not only a resolve to strengthen the rule of law, but a shared aspiration to protect the values that define a just and humane society.

“In recent years, our nation has continued to grapple with devastating consequences of terrorism and atrocity crimes.

“These acts of violence and large-scale human rights abuses do more than destroy lives; they threaten the very fabric of our national unity, undermine public trust and challenge the foundations of peace and order,” she said.

The CJN said that during these deeply challenging times, the judiciary must serve as a sentinel of justice, a guardian of accountability and a beacon of hope for victims and communities alike.

According to her, the project is more than a response to a national security imperative as, it is also a testament to an enduring commitment to justice, fairness and human dignity.

The CJN, who commended the United States government for supporting the project, said it was a reaffirmation of the international community’s confidence in Nigeria’s dedication to justice and security.

On his part, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, decried the continuous incessant acts of terrorism and atrocious crimes perpetuated in the country.

Tsoho said that the psychological scars from these acts were deep, just as the economic impact was immeasurable.

“As a nation, we have a solemn duty to ensure that those who commit these atrocities are brought to justice and that their victims find solace in the knowledge that accountability prevails,” he said.

He also said that the Federal High Court, by virtue of its jurisdiction over terrorism financing and other related offences, had a significant role in the fight against terrorism and atrocious crimes.

He, however, said that the unique nature of terrorism and atrocious crimes presented distinct challenges that demanded specialised knowledge, enhanced skills and robust institutional support.

“This is precisely where the capacity building programme becomes indispensable because it is not merely training but an investment in the future of our justice system.

“It is a strategic imperative to equip our judicial officers and supporting personnel with the necessary tools to effectively and efficiently handle these sensitive cases,” he said.

In her remarks, the Country Director of NCSC, Mrs Ugonna Ezekwem, said that the centre was fully ready to implement the project to build a resilient, efficient and effective judiciary that would tackle terrorism and atrocity-related cases.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs United States Embassy, Nigeria and the Federal High Court at the end of the event.

The programme was organised by the National Centre for State Courts (NCSC), with support from the United States government.

 

An EFCC’s witness, Offure Achille, on Tuesday, admitted that the name of Ali Bello, the Chief of Staff to Gov. Usman Ododo of Kogi, did not feature in any of the bank transactions in the ongoing money laundering trial.

Achille, the Head of Operations at Access Bank branch between 2015 and 2023 in Lokoja, Kogi, told Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja during cross examination by Bello’s counsel, Abubakar Aliyu, SAN.

The witness, who said he had no personal interest in the case, agreed that she gave a testimony as part of her official assignment.
She also admitted that she gave an evidence that there were transfer of funds from the state’s local government areas (LGAs) accounts into three companies; Fazab Business Enterprise and Hyzman ARY Construction Limited.
When the lawyer asked her if she had anything from any of the LGAs either by way of complaints that the payments made were either fraudulent, unauthorised or to show that they were not for services rendered by the companies, the witness said: “I did not have anything. There were no complaint.”
Achille, who is the 7th prosecution witness (PW-7), said lodgements of funds into E-Traders’ account were not through cash.
She admitted that she gave evidence that it was the cash withdrawn from Fazab, Hyzman and ARY that were paid into E-Traders’ account
“So if no cash was brought into the bank, it means that the cash withdrawn was not taken out of the bank,” the lawyer asked, and the witness responded in affirmative.
“Is it correct that neither you nor any staff of the bank colluded with them to carry out any illegality,” Aliyu also asked, and Achille responded in the affirmative.
The PW-7 told the court that the bank keeps proper book of accounts of the organisation.
When the lawyer asked the witness to take a look at the account statements of Hyzman and tell the court if there were several withdrawals, she admitted several withdrawals were made.
However, when Aliyu asked her to vet the account statements if there were any corresponding lodgement of funds into E-Traders’s account between 2020 and 2022, the witness said there was none.
The lawyer also asked the witness to look at the Fazab account between 2020 and 2021 and tell the court about the withdrawals and lodgements.
The PW-7 responded that though there were withdrawals from the account, there was no lodgement into E-Traders’ account.
She said on Aug. 2, 2021, the 2nd defendant (Abba Adaudu) withdrew the sum of N300, 000 from the account, but on the same day, he lodged into the E-Traders account the sum.of N30 million.
She, however, agreed with the lawyer that on the occasions when lodgements and withdrawals were made same day, the amount paid in were greater than the amount withdrew.
“Out of all these lodgements and withdrawals you went through from the last adjourned date and today, the name, Ali Bello didn’t feature in any of this,” the lawyer asked and the witness responded in affirmative.
When Aliyu began to ask the witness questions on ARY account statements between 2017 and 2022, EFCC’svkawter, Rotimi Oyedepo, SSN, objected, insisting that the bank entries before the court only began from 2021.
However, Aliyu disagreed with Oyedepo, arguing that while being led in evidence in chief, the witness made reference to account statements that had 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, and that it was their right too to cross examine her based on her evidence.
Justice Egwuatu, who adjourned the matter until July 1 and July 2 for continuation of trial, said the questions were for the “witness to respond if the entry is in the exhibit before her or not.”
Bello is standing trial on money laundering charges involving the alleged diversion of about N3 billion belonging to Kogi government and its local governments.
He faces 18 counts of money laundering alongside his co-defendants —Abba Adaudu, Yakubu Siyaka Adabenege, Iyada Sadat, and Rashida Bello.

 

A High Court of Justice sitting in Minna, Niger State, has dismissed a no-case submission filed by Prof. Dibu Ojerinde, the former Registrar, Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), in the alleged corruption charge preferred against him by the the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

Justice Abdullahi Mikalu, in a ruling dated 6th March, 2025 and the certified true copy sighted on Friday, held that Ojerinde’s submission of no case to answer failed in respect of the offences in counts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and 10 of the charge.

“And he is hereby called upon to enter his defence if he so wish to do,” Justice Mikalu said.

The judge, however, held that the ex-JAMB registrar’s no-case submission succeeded in respect of counts eight and nine of the charge “and he is accordingly discharged of the offences in counts 8 and 9.”

The trial judge stated that the sole issue for determination in the application was “whether having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, a prima facie case has been made out against the accused person to warrant this court to call upon him to enter defence.”

The ICPC had, in the amended charge marked: NSHC/MN/ICPC/1C/2021 and filed by its lawyer, Ebenezer Shogunle, dragged Prof. Lawrence Adedibu Ojerinde to court as the sole accused person in the allegations bordering on corruption while he was Registrar, National Examinations Council (NECO).

Ojerinde, the ex-Registrar of NECO and JAMB respectively, was initially arraigned before the court on a 10-count charge dated February 2, 2021 and filed on February 4, 2021.

The charge was subsequently amended by the prosecution, and Ojerinde was re-arraigned on a 10-count amended charge dated and filed on March 6, 2023.

He was alleged to have committed the offences of dealing with property acquired through gratification, bribery and given assistance, etc in regard to contracts, fraudulent acquisition of property and gratification by and through agents, contrary to Sections 24, 22(6), 12 and 17 (1) (a) of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act 2000.

The former JAMB boss, however, pleaded not guilty to the amended charge on January 17, 2024.

In an attempt to discharge the burden of proof placed on it by law, the anti-corruption Commission called four witnesses and tendered several documentary exhibits.

Ojerinde, through his lawyer, filed a no-case submission, insisting that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against him.

He, then, prayed the court to dismiss the charges against him

The prosecution maintained that the Commission had established its case and that the court should order the ex-JAMB boss to enter his defence in the charge.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Mikalu agreed with the Commission’s argument that there is the need for Ojerinde to be called upon to explain his roles in some of the counts preferred against him.

“I have carefully considered the submissions of counsel for and against the written submission of no case to answer and the authorities cited in support of same.

“As echoed and re-echoed by learned counsel in their respective written submissions, the concept of submission of no case to answer enjoys statutory blessing in this jurisdiction by virtue of Section 191(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Niger State,” he said.

The judge, therefore, upheld counts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and 10 of the charge.

“The above pieces of evidence tallies with allegations contained in count 10 of the charge.

“I hold the view that the accused person needs to make some explanation regarding the acquisition of the said house by a company in which he is a director,” he declared while deciding on Count 10, among other counts.

In conclusion, the judge said: “From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, as well as the exhibits referred to in this ruling, I hold the view that prima facie case has been made against the accused person in respect of the offences in count 1 to 7 of the charge.

“At least exhibits 1,J,K,4,N,S and Defence Exhibit 8 are facts which are not reasonably open to question because the exhibits cannot exist if the companies they refer to were not incorporated.

“However, I am not satisfied that prima facie case has been made out against the accused person in respect of count 8 of the charge.

“It is trite law that every material allegation in the charge must be proved.

“I hold that no prima facie case is made out against the accused person in respect of the offence in Count 9 of the charge.

“The accused person is discharged of the offence of fraudulent acquisition of property in Count 9 of the charge.”

It would be recalled that Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja had, on Tuesday (June 10), similarly rejected the no-case submission filed by Ojerinde in another charge bordering on alleged corruption to the tune of N5.2 billion.

Justice Egwuatu, in the ruling, held that the elements of the offence preferred against Ojerinde had been identified by the ICPC’s witnesses, requiring the defendant to enter a defence to the 18-count charge.

The Commission alleged that Ojerinde committed multiple frauds while heading NECO and JAMB.

He, however, pleaded not guilty to all the counts after he was arraigned.

 

The absence of the prosecution and defence lawyers on Tuesday, stalled the planned adoption of final written addresses in the charge filed by the EFCC against James Nolan, a director in the Process and Industrial Development (P&ID) Ltd.

The matter was subsequently adjourned until Sept. 24 for adoption of their written addresses.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Nolan, a British national, in the trial linked to the alleged $9.6 billion P&ID scandal, had, on Jan. 16, told the court that he would not be calling any witness(es) in the ongoing trial.

Nolan, who jumped bail around September 2022 and fled Nigeria, told the court through his lawyer, Michael Ajara.

The lawyer said that he would rely on the prosecution’s evidence already presented in court and would not be presenting additional evidence.

After the submission of the counsel, Justice Egwuatu had adjourned the matter to for the adoption of the final written addresses of the parties.

The EFCC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/9/22, dragged Micad Project City Service, a subsidiary of P&ID Ltd, and Nolan before Justice Egwuatu.

The defendants were arraigned in May 2022.
The defendants however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and Nolan, who is also a director in P&ID Ltd, was remanded at Kuje Correctional Centre.
Upon meeting his bail conditions of N100m and a surety in like sum, Nolan was granted bail.
He, however, stopped attending court proceedings and fled the country.
After his escape, he was declared wanted by the court, and an order was issued for his arrest wherever he was found.
The EFCC lawyer, Bala Sanga, proceeded to apply for the trial of the defendant in absentia, which was accordingly granted by the court.
Nolan was said to have been re-arrested by the International Criminal Police Organisation in Italy on January 27, 2024, when he visited his wife.
He was yet to be extradited to Nigeria to face trial.
A sister court presided over by Justice Donatus Okorowo, who had been elevated to the Court of Appeal, on July 3, 2024, ordered the closure of two other companies linked to Nolan, over involvement in the P&ID Ltd fraud.
Justice Okorowo, in two separate judgments, held that the two companies were found guilty of money laundering offences and ordered that the companies be wound up and their assets forfeited to the Federal Government.
The companies are Trinity Biotech Nigeria Limited and Resorts Express Concept Nigeria Ltd.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, ordered the remand of Mr Jesam Michael, the Chef Executive Officer (CEO) of Afriq Arbitrage System (AAS) Limited, in Kuje Correctional Centre over alleged investment fraud.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a ruling in Michael’s bail application shortly after he was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), refused his bail plea on the grounds of the gravity of the offence and weight of evidence against him.

Justice Egwuatu agreed with the argument of the EFCC’s lawyer, Martha Babatunde, that despite the instant charge, more petitions were still being received by the commission and other security agencies from victims of the ponzi scheme of the defendant.

The judge observed that the anti-graft agency, in its argument, also submitted that its further investigation had revealed that there were over 50,000 investors in Michael’s failed investment scheme.

He also held and that the victims were aggrieved and it would be in his own safety to remain in government custody pending the conclusion of the trial.

Egwuatu, who ordered accelerated hearing of the trial, directed Michael to be transferred from the EFCC custody to Kuje Correctional Centre pending the conclusion of his trial.
He emphasised the need for a speedy trial while the defendant remained in custody.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the EFCC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/134/2025, dragged Michael and his company, a cryptocurrency trading platform, to court as 1st and 2nd defendants.
The commission, in the seven-count charge bordering on money laundering, advance fee fraud, among others, accused Michael of investment fraud involving 844,416.36 U.S dollars, N590 million and another 10,000 U.S. dollars.
The EFCC alleged that Michael and his company, between September 2022 and June 2023 in Abuja, while not being a bank or an authorised entity to take deposits, invited the public through advertisements to deposit funds with Afriq Arbitrage System Limited.
This, according to the commission, is in contravention of Section 44(1) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2020, and is punishable under the same Act.
The EFCC also accused Michael and his company of engaging in the specialised business of financial services, including investment management, without a valid license.
The defendants were alleged to have between October and December 2024 in Abuja, “converted the cumulative sum of N590 million being part of the funds generated from the sale of properties recovered from Oluwasesan Abayomi, knowing that the funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activity.”
The offence, the EFCC said, is contrary to Section 18(2)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
They were equally alleged to have, sometime in 2022 in Abuja, with intent to defraud, induced Ladi Musa Audu to deposit the sum of $844,416.36 USDT into the Afriq Arbitrage System investment scheme, under the false representation that the investment was safe and refundable upon request.
It said the offence is contrary to Section 1(2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act, among other counts.
Upon resumed hearing on Tuesday, Babatunde, who appeared for the EFCC, informed the court that the matter was slated for Michael’s arraignment and that she was ready to proceed.
Michael’s counsel, Uchenna Njoku, SAN, did not object and the charge was read to the defendant’s who pleaded not guilty to all the counts.
After the prosecution sought a date for trial, Njoku informed the court of his client’s application for bail dated May 4 but filed May 6.
The senior lawyer argued that his bail request was in line with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
Njoku urged the judge to exercise his discretional power and grant Michael bail on liberal terms.
He said prior to now, the defendant had no criminal record and the EFCC had granted Michael administrative bail.
He maintained that the issue was associated with a former staff of Michael who allegedly accessed the company’s “wallet” and moved investors’ funds, adding that the case is pending before another court.
On her part, Babatunde urged the court to refuse the application made by the defendant.
She said though the EFCC had granted Michael an administrative bail before, the lawyer said the defendant was unable to meet the terms.
She contended that there were over 50,000 investors affected in the scam and that the EFCC was still receiving petitions against Michael.
“That further to paragraph 3 (1), the commission is still receiving other petitions against the applicant and investigation has revealed that there are over 50,000 investors into the applicant’s failed investment scheme.”
In associated affidavits by the EFCC, the commission argued that Michael was arrested while attempting to leave the country and is unlikely to return to face trial due to the gravity of the charges and the weight of evidence.
Justice Egwuatu, while delivering the ruling, said a suspect is entitled to bail in line with constitutional provisions.
The judge observed that the EFCC had granted the suspect bail but later opposed the granting of bail by the court.
Having considered the facts, the judge said it is in the best interest of Nigeria and the affected investors “to refuse the defendant bail.”
The judge, who held that investment fraud is now rampant in Nigeria, adjourned the matter until June 20 for trial.

 

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

Reacting to a breaking news-headline about the recent passing of a very respected Chief Justice of Nigeria, Emeritus, Hon Justice Mohammed Uwais, learned senior colleague and notable human rights advocate who is an emeritus First Vice President of the NBA, John Aikpokpo-Martins, Esq, has declared that “Nothing is sad about his passing on. He lived a fulfilled life and left indelible positive marks behind. He died an old man.”
➖➖

Dear distinguished learned Aikpokpo-Martins, Sir, while I agree with everything you have written, it’s difficult for me to agree that Hon Justice Uwais as Nigeria’s CJN “left indelible positive marks behind.” With due respect, it is my considered view that all former Chief Justices of Nigeria (CJNs), as well as the current one, including my Lord, Hon. Justice Uwais, were unsuccessful in discharging the responsibilities of their office in a manner that could justifiably qualify any of them as having left “indelible positive marks behind.” Sadly, with due respect, the current CJN appears set to end her tenure as perhaps among the worst of them all.

If we are to face REALITY and insist on substance over sentiment, I respectfully challenge anyone to point to a single “indelible positive mark” left behind by any former CJN, including Hon. Justice Uwais. Consider the following factual REALITIES in Nigeria’s judicial landscape as of 2025:

1. As of 2025, Nigerian judges still record court proceedings in longhand, a practice long abandoned in most modern jurisdictions. This archaic method slows down trials and contributes significantly to the delays that have become synonymous with Nigerian courts.

2. The Supreme Court of Nigeria, as of 2025, remains arguably the most disorganized, inconsistent, and ineffective apex court in the world. No coherent case management system exists, and decisions are often riddled with contradictions, leading to a serious crisis of judicial credibility.

3. It is also the slowest Supreme Court in the world, routinely taking between 6 to 15 years to determine appeals before it. Many matters before it are simply adjourned indefinitely of for an unduly long time, sometimes for up to 3 to 4 years, thereby defeating the fundamental principle that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

4. Lawyers and litigants are still required to travel from all over the country to Abuja in order to appear before the Supreme Court, incurring unnecessary expenses and risking security challenges, despite global advancements in remote hearing technologies.

5. Cases are still being adjourned for three to five years, and it is not uncommon to see matters rescheduled without any consideration for urgency, public interest, or the rights of parties.

6. Despite advancements in legal technology globally, Nigeria still operates manual filing and manual service of court processes, contrary to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees “fair hearing within a reasonable time” for all litigants.

7. Virtual hearings remain absent. Despite a global shift during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the Nigerian judiciary has not PRACTICALLY institutionalized remote court sittings. Even copies of judgments are still not handed out to litigants and lawyers on the same day they are delivered, a basic practice in most well-functioning jurisdictions.

8. There’s widespread inconsistency in the court’s decisions leading to uncertainty in judicial precedents and confusion in the legal system. For example, the Court was once said to have awarded a senatorial candidacy to a person who never participated in the party’s primary elections, thereby usurping the functions of the party members, the legislature and the electoral commission.

9. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has become, in the eyes of many, a court reserved for the powerful and politically connected, where the pursuit of justice by the common man is often ignored. As I have written elsewhere: “If we agree that access to justice is a basic human right, to be enjoyed by all (including the lowly placed), then we are entitled to query the Nigerian Supreme Court’s different, partial, and unequal treatment of cases before it….*The cry of the poor may not always be just, but if you don’t listen to it on time, you will never know what justice is.”*

10. The notion of “high-profile cases” in Nigeria, and the undue attention these cases receive, often at the expense of regular or so-called “low-profile” cases, are both thoughtless and indefensible. It has no place in any judicial system that aspires to fairness and effectiveness. In a truly functional and just legal system, all cases, regardless of the status, wealth, or influence of the parties involved, ought to receive equal treatment, attention, and expedition. Justice should not be stratified. Yet in Nigeria, our courts have institutionalized this senseless distinction, where high-profile cases are given priority and fast-tracked, while the everyday matters affecting ordinary citizens are neglected, delayed, and treated as secondary. This judicial partiality not only perpetuates systemic discrimination but also deepens the already troubling divide between the elite and the masses. It is, therefore, increasingly difficult to uphold in Nigeria, the oft-repeated saying that “the court is the last hope of the common man.” If anything, the REALITY seems to be the reverse: Nigerian courts appear structured and sustained through public funds, to primarily serve the interests of the privileged few, leaving the common man to his fate! The pressing question then becomes: where were the successive Chief Justices of Nigeria (CJNs) while this grave injustice took root and became normalized? What reforms did they initiate, or fail to initiate, to correct this inequity? Their silence and inaction raise serious concerns about the true legacy they have left behind.

11. In other jurisdictions, it is the Chief Justice who typically leads initiatives toward meaningful pragmatic policy reforms and effective progress in justice delivery. But in Nigeria, what practical and pragmatic reforms has any CJN truly embarked upon? Where, then, are the so-called “indelible positive footprints”? Or are we perhaps confused about what actually constitutes positive footprints in reality? Can there be any such footprints in the absence of genuine progress?

12. The immediate past CJN, Hon Justice Kayode Ariwoola, had on 12 October 2022, in a public address, pledged significant reforms aimed at modernizing the Nigerian judiciary. His promises then included the following: (i). Computerization of the Supreme Court and other courts of record; (ii). Introduction of e-filing and e-diary systems to reduce filing delays; (iii). Enabling lawyers to engage the court remotely via Zoom from their chambers; (iv). General advancement of the judiciary to benefit all Nigerians, especially through improved access to justice. Again, on 1 November 2023, at a three-day retreat in Uyo for Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, organised by AGA-Africa and the NJI, the CJN reaffirmed his commitment to judicial digitization, stating that “We must embrace the potential of technology” to enhance efficiency in justice delivery.” According to him, technology would streamline administrative tasks, facilitate legal research, reduce case backlogs, and improve transparency. However, looking back, one might ask: where’s Hon Justice Ariwoola with his promises of judicial reforms for Nigeria? Despite those bold and commendable promises made by my Lord in October 2022 and November 2023, one can see that very little was done in tangible terms to fulfill them. Nearly two years later, the Nigerian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, remains largely analogue, plagued by manual filing, physical court appearances, and prolonged delays. This failure to implement the promised technological reforms reflects a disturbing pattern of rhetoric without action. It undermines public trust in the judiciary and raises serious concerns about the sincerity and capacity of its leadership to deliver the kind of transformative justice system Nigeria so desperately needs.

*FURTHER READING:*

1. “Nigeria’s Supreme Court: About the Slowest in the World” By Sylvester Udemezue (The Guardian, 21 June 2021).

2. “Prolonged Justice Dispensation as the Bane of Nigeria’s Judiciary: Leadership by Example as the Cure” By Sylvester Udemezue (TheNigeriaLawyer, 11 August 2021).

3. “Nigerian Justice Sector Reforms: Enough Talking Done, and Promises Made. Now is Time for Action and Doing Things Differently” By Sylvester Udemezue (TripleNet Media, 1 November 2023).

4. “Snail-Paced Justice Dispensation in Nigerian Courts: Factors and Actors” By Sylvester C. Udemezue, in U.D. Ikoni, T.F. Yerima, and P.H. Faga (eds), Judicial Autonomy, Administration of Justice and Contemporary Trends in Development of Legal Profession In Nigeria: Essays In Honour of His Lordship, Hon Justice S.O Itodo (1st, Wisdom Books & Publishing, Makurdi, Nigeria 2023) 511-530. ISBN: 978-978-746-8-3

5. “How Many Times Will Lagos Judiciary ‘Launch’ E-filing? Will They Ever Fully Start, in Reality?” By Sylvester Udemezue (LawAndSociety Magazine, 6 February 2025).

6. “RE: Uduak Akpan Who Killed Job Seeker, Iniubong, Hanged to Death” – Sylvester Udemezue (Barristerng, 7 September 2024): “A Law School student appearing before my panel for Portfolio Assessment on 4 September 2024, was so sad to announce that he was at the Supreme Court when a matter was adjourned from 2024 to 2028.”

7. “The Supreme Court of Nigeria as All-in-One: The Legislative, Executive and Judicial Court, All at the Same Time?” By Sylvester Udemezue (TripleNet Media, 3 March 2023).

8. “Endangered Species: See the Fifteen (15) Most Vicious and Relentless Oppressors of Lawyers and the Law Profession in Nigeria” By Sylvester Udemezue (CourtroomMail, 28 February 2022).

9. “How Leaders of Nigeria’s Judiciary Dissipate Valuable Time on Irrelevancies” By Sylvester Udemezue (Newswire, 16 May 2020).

10. “Let Only High-profile Nigerians Fund the Supreme Court; It Has Become a Court for High-profile Cases Only” – Sylvester Udemezue (The Nigerian Voice, 17 June 2022).

11. “RE: JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM SUMMIT 2024.” By Sylvester Udemezue (BarAndBenchNews; 27 April 2024).

12. “Extent of Statutory Involvement of Incumbent CJN in the Process to Appoint Mr. Olukayode Ariwoola (Jnr) a Judge of the FHC” By Sylvester Udemezue (DnlLegalAndStyle; 17 July 2023);

13. “How to Stop the Current Unacceptable Delay in Court Justice Delivery in Nigeria (Part 1).” By Sylvester Udemezue (DNLLEGALAND LSTYLE; 2 January 2022);

14. “Thirty (30) Things I Must Do to Make My Court Work Effectively, If I Were a Trial Judge” By Sylvester Udemezue (DNLLEGALAND LSTYLE; 6 May 2023);

15. ““Always Exhaust Alternative Options Before Resorting To Litigation,” Delta Judge Admonishes NBA Members” By Sylvester Udemezue (BarristerNG; 30 June 2024);

16. Etc
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (udems)
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice, Nigeria (A Nonaligned, Nonprofit Public Interest Law Advocacy Group).
Tel: 08039136749.
Email: TheRealistMinister@Gmail.Com.
(06 June 2025)