Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court, sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Thursday, February 13, 2025 adjourned till March 17, 2025 for ruling on the application filed by Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the multiple fraud charges filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commision, EFCC.
Otudeko was to be arraigned alongside a former Managing Director of First Bank Plc, Olabisi Onasanya; a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Limited on a 13-count charge, bordering on obtaining by false pretence to the tune of N12.3 billion, which the defendants seek to evade with preliminary objections, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try them.
At today’s proceeding, prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, informed the court that the prosecution had complied with the court’s directive to serve the defence with the charges and proof of evidence.
“The matter was adjourned till today for arraignment, but before the adjournment on January 20, the court had directed the prosecution to serve by substituted means the charges and proof of evidence on the defence and we served accordingly and we have affidavit to prove,” he said.
Otudeko’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, however, notified the court of a fresh application, from his client, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, served on the prosecution on January 29, 2025 and requested for a hearing date.
Counsel for the third defendant, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, similarly, informed the court that on February 10, 2025, he filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court which he said, has been served on the prosecution. The same application was also filed by counsel for the fourth defendant, A. Adedeji, SAN and served on the prosecution.
Confirming the development, prosecution counsel argued that hearing on the applications cannot go on due to the absence of Otudeko, the first defendant in court. “Few minutes ago, we received the first defendant’s affidavit for the record confirming that he travelled out of the country for medical reasons. I also confirm that I was served with a harvest of motions. I confirm receipt of the motion on notice from the first, third, and fourth defendants all challenging the court’s jurisdiction. They also asked the court to stay arraignment and also for outright acquittal and also that the court should not just quash the charge but dispense the appearance of defendants pending the arraignment of the defendant. For the absence of the first defendant, we may not be able to take the plea. We want an undertaking from the first defendant to know when he can come, so that we can take the arraignment,” he said.
Counsel for the third defendant, however, urged the court to proceed with the hearing of the application arguing that the absence of the first defendant is immaterial to the hearing of the application.
“The usual thing is to proceed with the application, however the prosecution said they cannot proceed because of the absence of the first defendant. The authorities support that an application can be heard even in the absence of the defendant. Jurisdiction is very rife and the law is clear, arraignment before an application will be prejudicial to the case,” he said. His submissions were adopted by counsel for the fourth defendant.
Prosecution counsel in his response, noted that the application of the first, third and fourth defendants urging the court to hear and determine the matter of jurisdiction and sundry prayers contained were untenable and urged the court to discountenance them.
“It appears to me that we are gradually in this case repeating the issue that occurred late last year. I refer the court to the Appeal Court’s decision on the case of Yahaya Bello, appeal no CA/ABJ/CR/534, the provision of 396(2) of ACJA 2015 reproduced above is very clear to the effect that any preliminary objection to the validity of the charge can only be heard after the plea has been taken. Asking the court to hear and determine a preliminary objection while the first defendant is in the UK with nothing to say than that he is on admission is injustice. It is unfair to him for us to be shaving his hair while he is in a mansion in the UK. I urge your lordship to bind yourself with the decision of Court of Appeal that I just cited,” he said.
Oyedepo further argued that: “The approach by the defence is taking is taking us back to Egypt where we have left. The application is incurably defective. It is dead on arrival. I should not dignify an illegality. The law says you can’t raise it. I urge the court to adjourn for arraignment and then after the plea of the defendant, objections can be raised. Except there is amendment to Section 396 of ACJA, I urge your lordship not to accede to the request of the defence. Don’t give judicial blessings to the implied conduct of the defendant to the effect that I stay in the house and my lawyer will deal with it. Ask him to come.
“No private citizen whether corporate or entity has the requisite power to condone criminal allegations or compound an offence. It cannot be said that there is no prima facie case. The provision of 396(2) divests my lord of the requisite power to hear an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court or charge before the plea is taken. Those prayers cannot be entertained because the law says so.”
He specifically requested that the defendant be present in court at the next sitting.
After listening to the arguments, Justice Aneke adjourned till March 17, 2025, for ruling on the applications.
