Otudeko to Know Fate on Court’s Jurisdiction in Alleged N12.3b Fraud Case on March 17

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court, sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has adjourned until March 17, 2025, to rule on the application filed by Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, challenging the court’s jurisdiction in the N12.3 billion fraud case brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Otudeko, along with former First Bank Plc Managing Director Olabisi Onasanya, ex-Honeywell board member Soji Akintayo, and Anchorage Leisure Limited, faces a 13-count charge of obtaining by false pretenses, amounting to N12.3 billion. The defendants have raised preliminary objections challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

At Thursday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, informed the court that the prosecution had followed the court’s directive to serve the defence with the charges and proof of evidence. He confirmed that this was done through substituted service on January 29, 2025.

However, Otudeko’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, brought a fresh application challenging the court’s jurisdiction, which was served on the prosecution on January 29, 2025. Counsel for the third defendant, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, similarly informed the court of a jurisdictional application filed on February 10, 2025. The same application was filed by the fourth defendant’s counsel, A. Adedeji, SAN.

Prosecutor Oyedepo noted that the hearing of the applications could not proceed because Otudeko, the first defendant, was absent from court. “We received an affidavit confirming that the first defendant is out of the country for medical reasons. I was also served with motions from the first, third, and fourth defendants, all challenging the court’s jurisdiction and seeking a stay of arraignment, acquittal, and dismissal of the charges,” Oyedepo said. He requested an undertaking from Otudeko regarding when he could return for arraignment.

Despite the absence of Otudeko, the third defendant’s counsel argued that the applications should proceed. He contended that the absence of the first defendant should not hinder the hearing of jurisdictional matters, citing legal precedents that supported the idea that jurisdictional applications could be heard even in the defendant’s absence.

Prosecution counsel, however, dismissed the argument, insisting that according to the law, a preliminary objection to the validity of charges should only be heard after the defendant’s plea has been taken. “It is unfair to proceed with these applications while the first defendant is abroad. The law is clear, and I urge the court to disregard the request from the defence,” Oyedepo argued, referencing the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Yahaya Bello.

After hearing the submissions, Justice Aneke adjourned the case to March 17, 2025, for a ruling on the jurisdictional applications.