₦6.2 Billion Fraud Scandal: Court Set To Decide Otudeko’s Fate On March 17

A Federal High Court in Lagos has scheduled March 17, 2025, to rule on multiple applications challenging its jurisdiction over a 13-count charge against former First Bank Nigeria (FBN) chairman, Oba Otudeko, and others.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

The decision followed legal arguments presented by counsel representing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the defendants.

Otudeko was absent from the proceedings, while Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, former FBN Group Managing Director, and Soji Akintayo, ex-board member of Honeywell Flour Mills PLC, were present.

The prosecution was represented by Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), while the defense team included Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Oladipo Shasore (SAN), Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), and Ade Adedeji (SAN) for the 1st to 4th defendants. Jide Koku (SAN) represented the complainant, First Bank.

Olanipekun informed the court that Otudeko had filed an application dated January 28, 2025, explaining his absence. The document stated that he traveled to the United Kingdom for medical treatment on January 16, 2025, and arrived in Heathrow the same day. Olanipekun stressed that Otudeko lawfully left the country and did not abscond.

In response, Oyedepo reminded the court that the session was scheduled for the defendants’ arraignment and that the prosecution had followed the court’s directive by serving the defendants through substituted means.

Defense counsel for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants, including Ogunwumiju (SAN), Adedeji (SAN), and Shasore (SAN), argued that the court must first rule on its jurisdiction before proceeding with the case.

Ogunwumiju, in an application dated February 10, 2025, urged the court to dismiss counts 1 to 10, citing an abuse of judicial process and a lack of prima facie evidence. He also sought an order restraining the EFCC from arresting, detaining, or harassing the 3rd defendant pending the outcome of the motion.

Additionally, the application requested the removal of the 3rd defendant’s name from the charge, arguing that the proof of evidence does not establish any connection between him and the alleged offenses.