N12.3bn ‘Fraud’: Court Denies Arrest Warrant Request, Says Otudeko, Others Not Properly Served

The expected and much publicised arraignment of chairman of the Honeywell Group, Oba Otudeko, and three others, over alleged N12.3 billion could not proceed on Monday at the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, even as the court denied a request by EFCC to issue an arrest warrant for Otudeko, Dr Bisi Onasanya and two others due to lack of formal service on the defendants.

The court addressed multiple motions during the session, including the Prosecutor’s request for a warrant of arrest, which the Judge rejected due to the lack of formal service to the defendants and granted an application for substituted service.

A 13-count charge preferred by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Otudeko and a former Managing Director of First Bank Plc, Olabisi Onasanya, was yet to be served on them by the EFCC. Also to be arraigned is a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

In the charge marked FHC/L/20c/2025, the defendants were accused of allegedly obtaining N12.3billion from First Bank under pretence. When the case was called on Monday, Counsel to Otudeko, Mr Bode Olanipekun (SAN), informed the court that he was appearing in protest in the case, as the charge has not been served on his client.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke then raised a question as to the appearance of all defence counsels in court if they claimed the defendants had not been served.

RELATED

The Power Of Soft Power

3 hours ago

Court Fines 30 Sanitation Defaulters In Umuahia

3 hours ago

In response, Olanipekun sought an order restraining parties from irresponsible use of the media, stating that on January 17, the media was agog with screaming headlines, indicating that the defendants were to be arraigned on Monday. He showed the court several national dailies with the report, and also read out portions of the report, showing that the defendants were to appear before Justice Aneke. He described such conduct as being most unfair, especially as no charge was served on his client.

In response, the Judge advised all parties to exercise restraint in media engagement and urged journalists present to ensure accurate reporting of court proceedings. In response, Olanipekun told the court that on January 17, the media was agog with screaming headlines, indicating that the defendants were to be arraigned on Monday.

Olumide Fusika (SAN), who announced appearance for the second defendant, informed the court that he had a copy of the charge though not served, but he printed it.

Also, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) appeared for the third defendant, while Adeogun Philips (SAN) announced appearance for the fourth defendant in protest.

Philips also informed the court that his appearance was in protest as his client was never served with any charge.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke then raised a question as to the appearance of all defence counsel in court if they claimed the defendants had not been served.

Responding, the prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), told the court that efforts were made severally to effect service on the defendants without success.

Following a directive by the court to issue service on the second defence counsel who had indicated willingness to accept same, the prosecutor handed Fusika a copy of the charge in court.

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

The case has brought the EFCC under scrutiny for allegedly flouting procedural norms. Critics have faulted the agency for going public with the charges without first formally serving Otudeko and other implicated parties. Legal experts argue that this approach undermines the principle of fair hearing and could prejudice the public against the accused.

Otudeko has categorically denied allegations levelled against him by EFCC which centre around his involvement with First Bank of Nigeria, where he served as a non-executive director and left about four years ago.

In a release, Otudeko stated he that was confident that the truth will prevail in due course and looks forward to addressing these claims in the appropriate forum. While Dr Onasanya, while stating that he has no interest in the control dispute at First Bank, also asserted about his record at First Bank that his stellar reputation of integrity, built over four decades of impeccable professional service, cannot and will not be tarnished by these false allegations and incorrect charges.