N12.3bn fraud: Otudeko, Onasanya absent as court adjourns till Feb 13

N12.3bn fraud: Otudeko, Onasanya absent as court adjourns till Feb 13 N12.3bn fraud: Otudeko, Onasanya absent as court adjourns till Feb 13
Otudeko and Bisi Onasanya
Share

The Federal High Court in Lagos, on Monday, ordered substituted service of charges on the Chairman of the Honeywell Group, Oba Otudeko, and a former First Bank Managing Director, Stephen Onasanya, who are facing alleged 13 counts bordering on alleged N12.3bn fraud.

The defendants had been scheduled for arraignment on Monday before Justice C.J. Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos.

They were, however, absent, with their lawyers protesting that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had not served the charges on them.

Apart from Otudeko and Onasanya, others listed as defendants in the criminal case marked FHC/L/20C/2025, are a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Limited, allegedly connected to Otudeko.

When the case was called on Monday, the counsel who appeared for the defendants protested the charge, saying their clients had not been served.

Mr Bode Olanipekun (SAN), who announced his appearance for Otudeko, told the court that he appeared in protest in the case, as the charge had not been served on his client.

Also, Mr Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), who announced his appearance for Onasanya, said his client was not served but he got a printed copy of the charge sheet.

Similarly, Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who appeared for the third defendant, Akintayo; and Dr Charles Adeogun-Philips (SAN), who announced appearance for the fourth defendant, Anchorage Leisure Limited, protested non-service of the charges on their clients.

When Justice Aneke asked the defence counsel how they became aware of the case and appeared in court if their clients were not served, Olanipekun said they got wind of the matter in the newspapers.

He said national dailies were on Friday filled with screaming headlines, announcing the scheduled arraignment of the defendants.

He showed the judge the covers of different newspapers he brought to court as evidence.

Olanipekun said the EFCC was unfair to his client by making the charges public while his client had yet to be served.

But in response, the EFCC prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), told the court that efforts had been made severally to effect service on the defendants without success.

He then applied for an order to serve the charge sheet on the defendants by substituted means, which Justice Aneke granted.

However, Onasanya’s lawyer, Olumide-Fusika, told the court he was willing to accept the service of the charge on behalf of his client since he had already taken steps to print it.

Following the approval by the judge, the prosecutor handed Olumide-Fusika a copy of the charge sheet.

The court, consequently, adjourned the case until February 13, 2025, for the arraignment of the defendants.

The EFCC had alleged that the defendants conspired to obtain the sum of N12.3bn from First Bank Limited “on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by Tech Dynamic Links Limited and Stallion Nigeria Limited, a representation they knew was false.”

According to the EFCC, they obtained the money in four tranches of N5.2bn, N6.2bn, N6.150bn, N1.5bn and N500m, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos.

The commission also alleged that on or about November 26, 2013, in Lagos, the defendants obtained the sum of N5.2 bn from First Bank on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V Tech Dynamic Links Limited, a representation they knew was false.

The anti-graft agency claimed that the defendants, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, obtained N6.2bn from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for and disbursed to Stallion Nigeria Limited, a representation they knew was false.

In the fourth count, they were accused of conspiring to spend the N6.15bn out of the funds.

According to the commission, the offences contravened Section 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and are punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.

Share
Add a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *