Counsel in the case of alleged fraud preferred against the Chairman of Honeywell Group, Oba Otudeko, on Thursday, filed several preliminary objections to the suit before the Federal High Court in Lagos....Read Full Article >>➤
The preliminary objections are from Otudeko and others charged along with him.
The applications included those challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case, those asking for stay of arraignment, and those seeking quashing of the charge.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) preferred a 13-count charge against Otudeko and a former Managing Director of First Bank Plc., Olabisi Onasanya.
Also charged is a former member of the board of Honeywell Group, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.
The N6.2 billion fraud charge is marked FHC/L/20C/2025 and before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke.
NAN reports that the case was scheduled for arraignment on Jan. 20, but the defendants were absent on the grounds that the EFCC had not served them with the charge.
Their counsel had argued that they only got “wind” of the case on the pages of newspapers.
The court consequently directed service of the charge by substituted means, and adjourned the case.
On Thursday, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) announced appearance for EFCC and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) announced appearance for Otudeko, while Mr Olasupo Shashore (SAN) appeared for Onasanya.
Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) appeared for Akintayo, while Mr Ade Adedeji (SAN) aanounced appearance for Anchorage Leisure Ltd.
Mr Babajide Koku (SAN) announced appearance for the nominal complainant, First Bank of Nigeria.
Olanipekun informed the court of an application he filed on behalf of Otudeko and dated Jan. 28 which, he said, was served on EFCC on Jan. 29.
He also told the court that there was an affidavit dated Feb. 1 which gave details of Otudeko’s absence in court.
Other defence counsel briefly introduced their applications before the court.
In response, EFCC counsel, told the court that he had complied with the court’s directive on substituted service of the charge on the first, third and fourth defendants and had attached a proof of service.
He also told the court that he received processes from Olanipekun confirming that Otudeko was not within the court’s jurisdiction.
Oyedepo added that he received a “harvest of motions” from defence counsel in the suit, objecting to the suit.
He said it was important to know when the parties could return to the court for arraignment of the defendants since the first defendant was absent.
In response, Olanipekun informed the court that he had served an application on the prosecution on behalf of Otudeko, adding that EFCC had seven days to reply.
He argued that a court had to, first, decide whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the case.
He urged the court to give a date for hearing of the defendants’ applications.
In response, Oyedepo argued that the arraignment of the defendants ought to be taken first before any applications.
He cited the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Yahaya Bello as well as the provisions of Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
He submitted that the court should adjourn the case for arraignment of the defendants.
In further response, Olanipekun argued that it was important for the parties to refrain from “pulling cases by a strand of hair”.
Citing judicial authorities decided after the enactment of the ACJA, including Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) versus Idahosa and Shema Ibrahim versus FRN, he argued that the court dispensed with the appearance of the defendants in both cases.
On his part, counsel to the third defendant, Ogunwumiju, also argued that it was important for the court to first take the objection by defence in the interest of justice.
Citing the provisions of Edet versus State as well as Section 412(3) of the ACJA, he submitted that arraigning the defendants before hearing their objections would be prejudicial.
In the same vein, counsel to the second defendant, Shashore, urged the court to hear the applications of defence.
According to him, the fourth defendant seeks an application staying arraignment, and another quashing the charge.
He argued that it would be unfair to insist that the court would take the defendants’ pleas to a charge that might be quashed.
He added that it was important for the court to first decide whether there was merit in doing same.
Counsel to the fourth defendant, Adedeji, argued on the authority of Nwadike versus FRN that court processes must not be made to oppress citizens.
He argued that the case of Yahaya Bello as cited by prosecution was not relevant to the suit, neither was the provisions of Section 396(3) of ACJA.
Adedeji said that the defendants ought not to face fraud trial for a civil transaction.
In reply, Oyedepo said that the cases as cited by defence counsel were out of context and did not reflect the charge.
He urged the court to make an order directing Otudeko to be present in court on the next adjourned date.
At this point, Olanipekun informed the court that Otudeko was under medical review and was advised to remain in the United Kingdom until a comprehensive review and medical advice.
He urged the court not to make such an order, but to adjourn the case for hearing of the applications.
The judge adjourned the case until March 17 for ruling on the arguments. (NAN)
Be the first to comment