Connect with us

Headlines

EFCC to Arraign Oba Otudeko, Onasanya, Others for Alleged N12.3bn Fraud

Published

1 year ago

on

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed a 13-count criminal charge against the Chairman, Honeywell Group, Oba Otudeko and a former Managing Director of First Bank, Olabisi Onasanya for allegedly obtaining the sum of N12.3billion from First Bank.

They are to be arraigned on Monday, January 20, 2025, before Justice Chukwuejekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

They will be arraigned alongside, a former member of the board of directors of Honeywell Flour Mills Plc, Soji Akintayo and a company linked to Otudeko, named Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

All four were listed as defendants in the suit filed by an EFCC prosecutor, Bilkisu Buhari-Bala on January 16, 2025.

According to the EFCC, the four committed the fraud in tranches of N5.2billion, N6.2billion, N6.150billion, N1.5billion and N500million, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos.

In proof of the charge against the defendants, the EFCC intends to call representatives of First Bank including Cecelia Majekodunmi, Ola Michael Aderogba, Abiodun Olatunji, Raymond Eze, Abiodun Odunbola and Adeeyo David all of whom are expected to give evidence of the fraudulent misrepresentation of the Defendants and tender relevant documents.

The EFCC will also rely on the testimonies of representatives of Central Bank of Nigeria, representatives of Stallion Nigeria Limited and representatives of V-tech Dynamics Ltd.

Also included in the EFCC’s list of witnesses are one Farida Abubakar and Adaeze Nwakoby.

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

Count 1 of the charge says that Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court conspired amongst  yourselves to obtain the sum of N12,300,000,000.00 (Twelve Billion, Three Hundred Million Naira Only),from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied * for by V- Tech Dynamic Links Limited and Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 8(a) of Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.

In Count 2, it was alleged that the defendants, on or about 26th day of November, 2013 in Lagos, “obtained the sum of N5.2 Billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V Tech Dynamic Links Limited which representation you know to be false.”

The 3rd count claims that the defendants, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, obtained N6.2 Billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for and disbursed to Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

County 4 reads, that you, Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited on or about 26th day of November 2013 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court conspired amongst yourselves to use the total sum of N6,150,000,000,.00 (Six Billion, One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only.), which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of your unlawful activities to wit: Obtaining by False Pretence and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Sections 18(a), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

Count 5 accuses Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited on or about 11th day of December, 2013 in Lagos, procured Honeywell Flour Mills Plc to retain the sum of N1.5 billion, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of your unlawful activities to wit: Obtaining by False Pretence and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(c), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Headlines

Atiku Accuses INEC of Aiding Tinubu’s Alleged One-party State Agenda

Published

17 hours ago

on

July 14, 2026

By

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of aiding President Bola Tinubu’s agenda to weaken opposition parties ahead of the 2027 polls by granting access to a factional leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a statement issued Monday by the Atiku Media Office, Atiku alleged that INEC’s actions amounted to partisanship and a violation of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

The statement referenced a July 11, 2026 claim by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who “parades himself as National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC)”, that he had succeeded in uploading the names of his candidates on INEC’s portal.

According to Atiku’s office, uploading candidates is part of the process for the 2027 General Elections, made possible by access codes granted to political parties in line with INEC guidelines.

“Meanwhile, INEC has been mum, and has not denied or confirmed this obvious contradiction to the law and its own guidelines,” the statement said.

Atiku’s team argued that by granting an access code to Bala Gombe, INEC was recognizing a “pretender” despite having “since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco.”

“By granting access code to Bala Gombe, a pretender, laying claims to the chairmanship of the ADC, though the law is not on his side and INEC has since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco, the electoral umpire is once again manifesting its partisanship,” the statement noted.

It drew parallels with a past incident under Prof. Joash Amupitan-led INEC, alleging the commission “illegally removed the names of the duly recognised ADC exco following the judicial rascality of Justice Lifu in ignoring a superior ruling of an appellate court.”

The statement described the “so-called ‘successful’ uploading of ‘candidates’ by Nafiu Bala Gombe” as lacking legal basis.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe is not recognised as ADC Chairman. Mark is duly recognised. Can there be two recognised Chairmen of a political party? Possibly only in an INEC led by Amupitan. Can INEC grant two access codes to a political party? Certainly not,” it added.

Atiku’s office warned that the development “is a recipe for crisis and confirms that Prof Joash Amupitan was appointed to enable the weakening of the opposition parties by creating crisis even where none exists.”

Citing the law, the statement noted that Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that candidates must emerge through recognized party primaries supervised by INEC, while Section 84 of the Electoral Act 2022 requires parties to submit only one validly nominated candidate per elective office.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe and his criminal gang did not conduct any primaries. The INEC granting of access code to Nafiu Bala Gombe is unconstitutional and unlawful. The only submitted candidates known to the law are those of David Mark. Any parallel submission such as Nafiu Bala Gombe’s is null and void,” it said.

The statement called on the INEC Chairman to stop “fomenting crisis in the ADC and the other opposition parties and by so doing helping President Bola Tinubu’s agenda of total State capture.”

Continue Reading

Headlines

Appeal Court Bars David Mark-led EXCO from Parading Self As ADC Leaders

Published

1 day ago

on

July 13, 2026

By

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday affirmed the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The appellate court decision was a split of two-to-one.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a lead verdict delivered by Justice Okon Abang, said it found no reason to set aside the restraining order the Federal High Court in Abuja had issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.

It further upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.

The appellate court concurred that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.

While Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, the head of the appellate court’s panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, gave a dissenting judgment.

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.

He held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal judgment may jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged through the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

It will be recalled that the High Court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.

Those behind the suit are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC; Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.

The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing an alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.

It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Political commentary articles

She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.

Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.

It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertained to the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also waved aside the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

It held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.

The appellate court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.

“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang added in the majority judgment.

Consequently, the panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged in order to set aside the high court judgment.

It held that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC amounted to a nullity as they were held in disobedience to a subsisting order that the High Court made on April 14.

Having resolved the case against the ADC, the appellate court awarded a cost of N10million against the party.

Shortly after the judgment, the ADC, which was represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Mr Nkem Ukandu, said the party would take the case before the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading

Headlines

FG Suspends Proposed Hike in WAEC, NECO Fees

Published

2 days ago

on

July 13, 2026

By

The Federal Government has suspended its proposed increase in registration fees for the 2027 West African Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) and the National Examinations Council Senior School Certificate Examination (NECO SSCE), following public concerns over the move.

In a statement issued on Monday by the Federal Ministry of Education, the government announced the withdrawal of a June 18, 2026 letter that had communicated the proposed adjustment in examination fees.

According to the statement signed by the ministry’s Director of Press and Public Relations, Folasade Boriowo, the decision was taken to allow for broader consultations and a fresh review of the proposal before any final determination is made.

“The Federal Ministry of Education announced that the letter conveying the proposed fee adjustment, dated 18 June 2026, has been withdrawn to allow for a comprehensive review and broader consultations with all relevant stakeholders before a final decision is taken,” the statement read.

The proposed increase would have raised the registration fee for both WAEC and NECO examinations from N27,500 to N50,000 beginning in 2027, representing an 82 per cent increase.

The ministry explained that the planned review was prompted by the rising cost of conducting public examinations across the country. It noted that examination fees have remained largely unchanged for years despite significant increases in operational expenses.

According to the ministry, growing costs in areas such as logistics, security, printing of examination materials, technology deployment, quality assurance and other critical services have continued to put pressure on examination bodies.

However, it said the Minister of Education, Dr Maruf Tunji Alausa, had directed that implementation of the proposal be halted pending consultations.

“The Honourable Minister of Education, Dr. Maruf Tunji Alausa, CON, has directed that the proposal be placed on hold in line with the Federal Government’s commitment to inclusive, transparent and evidence-based policymaking,” the statement said.

The ministry stressed that no adjustment to examination fees would take effect until discussions with stakeholders are concluded.

It disclosed that consultations would involve examination bodies, state ministries of education, school proprietors and administrators, parents’ associations, organised labour, education stakeholders and other relevant partners.

The statement added that the government remains committed to ensuring that policies affecting students and their families are subjected to adequate scrutiny and reflect public interest.

Reaffirming its position, the ministry said students’ welfare, equitable access to quality education and responsible policymaking remain central to the Federal Government’s education agenda.

It also pledged to keep Nigerians informed throughout the consultation process before any decision is reached on the proposed fee review.

Continue Reading