N600m Lexus: Police Face Questions Over ‘Theft’ Charge Against Chappal Energies CEO

The planned arraignment of Chappal Energies Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, over the alleged theft and dishonest conversion of a company-owned Lexus LX 600 has raised questions among legal practitioners and corporate governance observers about the basis of the criminal charge.

Immanuel is expected to appear before the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, on a charge filed by the Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU), in a case marked 28400C/26.

According to the charge seen by journalists, the police allege that Immanuel conspired with unnamed persons to steal a Lexus Jeep LA 600F belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Ltd, the company he founded.

The vehicle is said to be worth about N600 million.

But lawyers and people familiar with the circumstances have questioned how the allegation amounts to theft when, according to the defence’s account, the Lexus remains the property of Chappal Energies.

The controversy is further complicated by the fact that Immanuel is already facing a separate criminal trial before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, arising from a wider dispute involving his business relationship with businessman Adebisi Adebutu and R28 Holdings Limited.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned Immanuel and Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited on March 11, 2026, on allegations of obtaining money by false pretence and forgery involving $1.5 million. They pleaded not guilty.

The EFCC alleges that Adebutu’s R28 invested the money in transactions linked to Chappal Petroleum Development Company, Intermediate Investment Holdings and Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited, with alleged representations concerning reimbursement, development fees and equity in IIHL.

The new police case involving the Lexus, however, centres on an entirely different transaction.

The question now is whether the circumstances surrounding the vehicle disclose the ingredients of theft or dishonest conversion, or whether they amount to an internal corporate approval and procurement dispute that has since assumed a criminal dimension.

An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Soro Chistiantus, said the circumstances disclosed so far raised fundamental questions that investigators ought to have resolved before filing a criminal charge.

According to him, the police should establish what transaction was completed, who acquired the vehicle, what consideration was paid and what deprivation the company suffered.

“What transaction was completed? Who is said to have acquired the vehicle? What money changed hands? What deprivation did the company suffer if the vehicle remains its property?”

Chistiantus argued that the available materials did not appear to answer those questions clearly.

He said the circumstances, as presented, appeared more consistent with a dispute over corporate approval or procurement procedure than a completed theft.

“That should have prompted the Police to examine whether this was, at most, an internal approval or procurement issue rather than a criminal theft,” he said.

He added that the prosecution materials, as described, did not appear to identify a completed disposal, a purchaser, sale proceeds or permanent deprivation of the vehicle.

“Scarce fraud-unit resources have been committed to a prosecution in which the disclosed materials do not appear to identify a completed disposal, a buyer, proceeds or permanent deprivation,” he said.

Chistiantus further contended that the Wednesday proceedings could raise an unusual legal question: whether a person could be prosecuted for stealing or dishonestly converting an asset that allegedly remains in the company’s ownership.

A retired Commissioner of Police, who spoke on the matter, also questioned the decision to prosecute Immanuel over the vehicle.

He said the police were prosecuting the company’s chief executive over a vehicle acquired for his official use, even though the vehicle was allegedly still recognised as a company asset.

A source close to Chappal Energies, who asked to remain anonymous because of the pending proceedings, described the theft allegation as unfounded.

According to the source, the Lexus had developed several mechanical problems and was already due for replacement.

The source further alleged that a subsequent routine security sweep of the vehicle detected three listening devices.

The source said an internal report detailing the alleged discovery, as well as the vehicle’s mechanical condition, was subsequently submitted to the company.

He insisted that the vehicle was neither hidden from Chappal Energies nor removed from the company’s knowledge, stressing that its location, condition and proposed replacement had been communicated internally.

According to the source, Immanuel, dissatisfied with the condition of the Lexus and the alleged security concerns, contacted a private dealer to explore a possible trade-in for another vehicle and personally undertook to meet the replacement cost.

“The complaint appears to be that he should have approached Chappal’s procurement team before initiating that discussion. Even if that internal procedure should have been followed from the outset, a possible procurement-process lapse is not self-evidently grand theft,” he said.

He said Immanuel subsequently informed the procurement team, notified the General Counsel and handed the proposed trade-in process over to company personnel.

“The vehicle remains the company’s property,” the source said.

He added that the materials relied upon by the police, as understood by the defence side, did not establish a completed sale, identify a purchaser or show that Immanuel received any sale proceeds.

Yet, according to him, the charge alleges conspiracy and dishonest conversion of the vehicle valued at about N600 million.

The source said the evidence reportedly includes the originating petition, statements, internal board correspondence, a change-of-ownership document and a police invitation.

He questioned the evidential basis for treating the matter as theft where, according to his account, the vehicle remained a company asset, and there was no established permanent deprivation.

“This looks less like sophisticated fraud detection than a disagreement about the sequence in which an executive spoke to a dealer, procurement personnel and the General Counsel,” he said.

The development has attracted particular attention because it comes against the backdrop of the much wider corporate and legal dispute involving Immanuel, Chappal Energies, Adebutu, R28 Holdings Limited and other entities connected with the parties’ investment arrangements.

The earlier EFCC prosecution itself has generated public controversy, with Immanuel’s representatives maintaining that the underlying disagreement is substantially commercial and subject to other legal proceedings. In November 2025, counsel representing Chappal Energies similarly argued publicly that civil disputes should not be prosecuted through law enforcement.

The EFCC, however, has maintained its allegations, and the criminal proceedings before Justice Dada remain ongoing. Recent reports show that prosecution witnesses have given evidence concerning the disputed $1.5 million investment.

The latest vehicle charge has therefore added a new criminal proceeding to an already complex corporate dispute.

The immediate issue before the court will be whether the police can establish the factual and legal elements needed to sustain the allegations against Immanuel, including the alleged theft or dishonest conversion and the alleged conspiracy.

The wider commercial dispute, including issues concerning shareholding, investment obligations, financing arrangements, and corporate control, remains separate from the question of whether the Lexus transaction disclosed a criminal offence.

As the parties continue to battle over broader corporate interests and related proceedings, the planned arraignment will likely focus attention on one narrow but significant question: what, precisely, was stolen, from whom, and what evidence establishes the alleged deprivation?