Chappal Energies CEO Challenges Court’s Jurisdiction Over N600m Theft Charge

The Chief Executive Officer of Chappal Energies, Ufoma Immanuel, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, to hear the N600 million alleged theft and dishonest conversion charges filed against him by the Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU).

Immanuel, through his counsel, Oluseun Awonuga (SAN), filed a preliminary objection seeking dismissal of the two-count charge, marked 28400C/26. He described the case as an abuse of the criminal justice process and argued that it failed to disclose sufficient facts to establish conspiracy and stealing.

Despite the objection, Justice Rahman Oshodi proceeded with Immanuel’s arraignment after rejecting an application to defer his plea pending determination of the jurisdictional challenge. The defendant subsequently pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The police alleged that Immanuel conspired with others still at large to steal a Lexus LA 600F SUV valued at about N600 million and later dishonestly converted the vehicle, belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Limited, to his personal use.

According to the charge, the alleged offences were committed in Lagos on January 6 and 12, 2026, while Immanuel was a suspended director of the company.

The jurisdictional dispute arose after the prosecution, led by Musa Usman, argued that Immanuel could not challenge the charge’s validity until he entered his plea. The defence, however, maintained that the court’s competence to entertain the case had to be determined at the threshold.

In the preliminary objection filed on September 22, Immanuel alleged that hostile interests within Chappal Energies initiated the criminal proceedings to gain an advantage in an ongoing dispute over the ownership, management and control of the company and its assets.

In a 56-paragraph affidavit and written address, he argued that neither the petition that triggered the police investigation nor the proof of evidence disclosed facts capable of establishing conspiracy or stealing against him.

The defence particularly challenged the conspiracy count, arguing that the charge neither identified the persons with whom Immanuel allegedly conspired nor disclosed any agreement, meeting of minds or concerted arrangement between them.

His lawyers also argued that the nominal complainant’s original petition did not accuse Immanuel of stealing the vehicle, contending that the subsequent charge therefore lacked a proper factual foundation.

The defence described the prosecution as an attempt to deploy the criminal justice system in a corporate dispute and urged the court to apply the Supreme Court’s principles on abuse of court process to dismiss the charge.

The objection had earlier stalled Immanuel’s arraignment, initially fixed for July 10. Justice Oshodi said the defendant, who was in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), was not produced in court on that date or on September 14, 15 and 16.

Although Immanuel was eventually brought to court on September 23, the arraignment was again stalled after his senior counsel sought to defer the proceedings pending determination of the motion filed the previous day.

The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that it had not been served with the motion and that an objection to the validity of the charge could only be raised after the defendant had entered his plea.

In his ruling, however, Justice Oshodi held that Section 374(2) of the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice (Amendment) Law 2021 permits a defendant to challenge the validity of a charge after entering a plea and before judgment.

The judge declined to allow the application to delay the arraignment further, noting that the motion had been filed only the previous day and had not been served on the prosecution. He held that further delay could return Immanuel to custody for an open-ended period.

Justice Oshodi also cited the Supreme Court decision in Guzia Mba2 v. FRN, where proceedings had been stalled for 15 years by a challenge to a criminal charge, and stressed the need for a pragmatic approach to criminal trials.

The judge further invoked Sections 35(4) and 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, noting that Immanuel had remained in custody without being called upon to plead. He held that keeping him in custody longer without arraignment would not serve the interests of justice.

He consequently refused the application to defer the arraignment and directed the registrar to read the charge to Immanuel. After the two counts were read, the defendant pleaded not guilty.

Following the plea, defence counsel, Mobolaji Kuti, sought a short adjournment to enable him to move Immanuel’s bail application.

Justice Oshodi subsequently remanded the defendant and adjourned the case until October 2 for further proceedings.

Immanuel is also facing a separate criminal case before Justice Mojisola Dada of the same court, filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following a petition by his business partner, Adebisi Adebutu. The allegations in both cases remain unproven.