Tag: Court

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered six financial institutions to supply the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) with details of transactions from January 2024 to date in bank accounts linked to politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore and his companies.

Justice Emeka Nwite issued the order on Tuesday while ruling on an ex parte application filed by the IGP, which was moved by a police lawyer, Wisdom Madaki. The application was marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1757/2025,

The affected financial institutions are United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, Guarantee Trust Bank (GTB) Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, Opay Digital Services Ltd, Moniepoint and Kuda Microfinance Bank Ltd.

It was learnt that no fewer than 26 bank accounts linked to Sowore, including Sahara Reporters Media Foundation and African Action Congress (AAC)’s accounts, among others, are being investigated.

The IGP particularly, prayed for “an order directing the following banks; UBA Plc, GTB plc, ZENITH Bank Plc, Opay Digital Services Limited, Moniepoint and Kuda Microfinance Bank Limited to furnished the applicant through the office of the Inspector General of Police Monitoring Unit account opening package/mandate card, certified true copy of the statement of account reflecting transfers with account numbers of both inflows and outflows from January, 2024 till date.”

The applicant said the order was needed because Sowore “is being investigated for terrorism financing, money laundering and fraudulent activities.

Read Also: Why court seized Zenon property over unpaid judgement debt

“The complainant had commenced an investigation into the activities of the first respondent (Sowore).

“The accounts in respect of which details were being sought are the accounts which the first respondent is using for terrorism financing and money laundering.”

In a supporting affidavit, it was stated that the police received an intelligence report that Sowore “is using the accounts for terrorism financing, money laundering and receives financial support from a foreign partner for terrorism.”

It added that there was a need for the police to secure the order of the court to obtain the statements of the accounts to enable the office to carry out an investigation into the alleged fraudulent activities of the suspects.

“The office of the complainant receives an intelligent report that the first respondent is using the accounts for terrorism financing, money laundering and receives financial support from foreign partners for terrorism.

“The first respondent is being investigated for terrorism financing, money laundering and fraudulent activities.

“There is a need for the court to grant the relief sought for the purpose of investigation.

“The respondent has been using the accounts for money laundering and terrorism funding, and fraudulent activities.”

Justice Dehinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday ordered the final forfeiture of 245,568,137 shares, valued at over N5 billion, traced to Major General Umar Mohammed, former Group Managing Director of Nigerian Army Properties Limited (NAPL), and businessman Kayode Filani.

The order followed an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which alleged that the shares were acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities during Mohammed’s tenure as head of the Army’s property company.

EFCC counsel, Hanatu Kofanaisa, informed the court that a Special Court Martial had already convicted Mohammed on 14 of 18 counts bordering on stealing and related offences.

She argued that the Commission had met all requirements for the interim forfeiture order, including publication in a national daily, and noted that no objection had been filed against the application.

After reviewing the motion, Justice Dipeolu held that the EFCC’s application was meritorious and ordered the shares permanently forfeited to the Federal Government, for the benefit of Nigerian Army Properties Limited.

The judge ruled that since the statutory conditions for final forfeiture had been satisfied and no opposition was raised, the application must succeed.

The application was brought under Section 44(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.

The forfeited assets were held in accounts operated by Rowet Capital Management Limited and Resort Securities & Trust Limited, in the name of Awhua Resources Limited, a company linked to Mohammed.

Among the forfeited holdings are millions of shares in major companies, including Cadbury Nigeria Plc, Conoil Plc, Dangote Sugar Refinery Plc, Eterna Plc, Flour Mills Plc, Japaul Gold & Ventures Plc, NASCON Allied Industries Plc, Oando Plc, University Press Plc, and Vitafoam Nigeria Plc.

Read Also: Oil dispute: Court acquits Asemota, others over alleged felony

The stock portfolio also includes significant holdings in Nigerian Aviation Handling Company (NAHCO), PZ Industries, Transcorp, Okomu Oil Palm, May & Baker, Ecobank Transnational Incorporated, Union Bank of Nigeria, and Unilever Nigeria Plc.

According to EFCC investigations, properties belonging to the Nigerian Army were illegally sold under Mohammed’s leadership, with proceeds diverted into stock acquisitions to conceal the origin of the funds.

In support of the application, EFCC investigator Nwike Fortune deposed to an affidavit detailing how Mohammed abused his office.

He stated, “The Commission received a petition from Nigerian Army Properties Limited against FCCNAPL Properties Limited, Alhaji Muhammadu Dahiru Wada, Maj. Gen. U.M. Mohammed, Yusuf Abubakar Abdullahi and Kayode Oladipupo Filani. The petition chronicled how properties belonging to Nigerian Army Properties Limited were fraudulently sold without recourse to the Board of the company by Maj. Gen. Mohammed, who was the Managing Director at the time.”

He further explained that the proceeds from those sales were used to acquire the forfeited shares:

“Preliminary investigations revealed that proceeds of the sales of the properties were used in the acquisition of shares in different companies now sought to be finally forfeited. The stocks contained in the attached schedules were acquired with part of the funds fraudulently obtained by Maj. Gen. Mohammed’s unlawful activities whilst Managing Director of Nigerian Army Properties Limited.”

The affidavit also disclosed that Mohammed, in an attempt to conceal the illicit funds, used his company, Awhua Resources Limited, to acquire the shares through accounts operated by Rowet Capital Management Limited and Resort Securities & Trust Limited.

The ruling comes after the EFCC had earlier secured the forfeiture of five properties also linked to Mohammed, following his conviction by a military court martial.

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday frowned at the conduct of a lawyer to Mohammed Usman (also known as Khalid al-Barnawi), leader of Boko Haram dissident splinter group, Ansaru and four other suspects, for failing to appear in court.

Justice Emeka Nwite, who expressed displeasure about the development, issued a final warning to the lawyer and defendants in the terrorism case to attend court unfailingly on the next hearing dates of September 5 and 12.

Usman is being prosecuted on terrorism related charges along with other suspected members of his group – Mohammed Bashir Saleh, Umar Mohammed Bello (a.k.a Datti), Mohammed Salisu and Yakubu Nuhu (a.k.a Bello Maishayi).

They are among others, accused of being members of a terrorist group known as Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan (a.k.a ANSARU).

The defendants are also alleged to have conspired among themselves to carry out acts of terrorism between 2011 and 2013 at Sokoto, Kebbi, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe and other states in the northern part of the country.

Read Also: Why court seized Zenon property over unpaid judgement debt

At the mention of the case on Tuesday, prosecuting lawyer, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN) told the court that the case was scheduled for continuation of proceedings in the trial-within-trial being conducted in the case.

Izinyon, however, noted that the first defendant (Usman) and his lawyer were absent. He further noted that lawyers for two other defendants were also not in court.

He noted that Usman’s lawyer, who claimed to be away in Enugu, had promised to send a representative, but failed to do so.

Izinyon expressed concern that the absence of the first defendant and the defence lawyers was unpleasant to the resolve by court to accelerate the hearing in the about 13-year trial.

He said the absence of the defence lawyers without communicating with the court was disrespectful.

Lawyer to Bello and Nuhu (3rd and 4th defendants), Abdulkarim Audu, also said the proceedings would have to be rescheduled in view of the absence of the first defendant and the defence lawyers.

Both lawyers, however, urged the court to grant a short adjournment to enable parties to make progress in the case within the ongoing vacation of the court.

Ruling, Justice Nwite expressed displeasure over the absence of the first defendant and some of the defence lawyers.

Justice Nwite said, “It is unfortunate that this scenario is playing out when the effort is to ensure expeditious hearing of the matter.

“This court will not condone the attitude of the first defendant or any of the defendants in absenting themselves from the proceedings,” he said.

The judge directed the lawyers to the parties to work together to address what informed the absence of the first defendant and other defence lawyers to prevent further delays in the case.

Justice Nwite then adjourned till September 5 and 12 for the continuation of evidence of the third prosecution witness (PW3) and the playing of the videos in the trial within trial.

The US had, in 2012, placed a $5m (£3.5m) bounty on his head after branding him one of three Nigerian “specially designated global terrorists.”

Ansaru is said to be ideologically aligned with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and is also accused of killing several Westerners.

Ansaru was reported to have claimed that it carried out an attack on a maximum security prison in Abuja in 2012, during which dozens of inmates were freed.

Legal analysts have said  only the court, not police reports can determine the defendants’ guilt or innocence in the trial of two lawyers, Ademola Owolabi and Adebayo Akeju set to resume on October 13 before Justice Serifat Sonaike of Lagos State High Court

 Owolabi and Akeju are in trial with real estate developer, Alex Ochonogor, on charges of forgery and wilful destruction of property.

Analysts say the controversy over two conflicting police reports underscores why the judiciary remains the proper forum for resolving the matter.

The first report, on November 15, 2023, by Special Enquiry Bureau, said the disputed property was sold to two buyers—Ochonogor and Continental Properties.

It queried the validity of certain documents, faulted Owolabi for lack of due diligence, and recommended charges of conspiracy, forgery, and encroachment.

But a second report of June 13 from General Investigation Section exonerated the defendants.

It described Ochonogor’s transactions as legal, affirmed authenticity of a demolition notice and a Memorandum of Loss, and recommended that the case be referred to Directorate of Public Prosecutions.

However, while identifying Ochonogor as complainant and Owolabi as sole witness, the GIS report listed “NIL” under exhibits—raising doubts about how such allegations could stand without evidence.

Read Also: NDLEA nabs drug kingpin, five others over arrest of three Nigerians in Saudi Arabia

Critics argue that producing a fresh report while the matter was already before the court undermines the rule of law by shifting evidential ground outside judicial scrutiny.

Analysts further contend that GIS investigators relied largely on statements from the accused while overlooking critical witnesses such as Dr. Eze, the current property owner who still holds the original title documents, and Major Mustapha, the original allottee whose signature was allegedly forged.

They add that no effort was made to authenticate the demolition notice with the Lagos State Ministry of Lands or to verify the Memorandum of Loss with the Ministry of Justice.

According to legal experts, these inconsistencies reinforce why it is the court—and not the police—that must assess the credibility of the reports and issue binding pronouncements.

“The duty of the police is investigation; the duty of the court is adjudication. When the two overlap, confusion arises. That is precisely why the court must make the final pronouncement,” a senior lawyer observed.

With trial set to resume, attention is now on the judiciary to determine the evidential value of the police reports and to decide whether the defendants are guilty or innocent of the charges.

The Enugu State High Court has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by a 300-level Law student of the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus (UNEC), against the Faculty of Law Examination Malpractice Committee of the institution.

Delivering judgment in Enugu on Thursday, August 21, 2025, Justice Kenneth Ikechukwu Okpe held that the action instituted by the student, Mr. Chidi Kingsley Akabogu, lacked merit and was premature, adding that the University has the legal authority to investigate and discipline students accused of academic misconduct in accordance with its rules and regulations.

Akabogu had dragged the Chairman of the Examination Malpractice Committee, Dr. Clara Obi-Ochiabutor, and the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Prof. Festus O. Ukwueze, to court, alleging that his right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution was about to be violated.

He claimed he was not properly informed of the panel sitting scheduled for July 29, 2025, and that the unsigned invitation notice circulated via WhatsApp suggested that his chances of graduating were already in jeopardy.

Through his lawyer, Chidiebere Lucky Obodo, Esq., the applicant sought a declaration that the committee was not impartial and could not sit over allegations it levelled against him.

Read Also: FG distributes 1,000 life jackets in Ogun, targets 42,000 nationwide

The student also prayed for an order disqualifying all committee members from hearing his case; an injunction restraining the panel from sitting on the matter as well as a declaration that he had been denied the constitutional right to a fair hearing.

The respondents, represented by D.A. Aneke, Esq., opposed the suit and raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter was incompetent, wrongly commenced by a motion on notice, and ought to have been filed at the Federal High Court since the respondents are agents of the Federal Government.

They further described the student’s case as speculative and premature since no disciplinary hearing had yet been conducted.

Delivering his ruling, Justice Okpe, dismissed the preliminary objections, holding that both the State High Court and the Federal High Court have jurisdiction over fundamental rights enforcement applications.

He also faulted the argument that a motion on notice could not initiate such a suit, stressing that courts must adopt interpretations that ensure citizens enjoy their guaranteed rights.

However, on the substantive matter, the court found no evidence that the faculty’s committee had denied the student, Akabogu, fair hearing.

The judge observed that Exhibit A, the unsigned WhatsApp-circulated notice relied upon by the applicant, was not addressed to him personally but was a general notice listing 11 students invited before the committee.

Justice Okpe ruled that Akabogu’s claim of bias was speculative, as the disciplinary process had not even commenced.

He further noted that universities retain the statutory authority to discipline erring students while respecting constitutional safeguards of fair hearing.

Quoting precedents, including Garba v. University of Maiduguri and Esiaga v. University of Calabar, the judge emphasized that while exam malpractice allegations may also involve criminal dimensions, universities have the right to investigate and sanction misconduct within their campuses.

The court described the student’s July 23 letter to the faculty dean seeking clarification as “audacious” and “full of commands,” adding that the applicant appeared intent on frustrating the disciplinary process rather than subjecting himself to it.

“This suit is premature. If the applicant’s intention is to frustrate the investigation of his alleged infraction, then he has failed as this court is unable to find any merit in his suit.

“Accordingly, the reliefs in this application are hereby refused and the suit dismissed with cost of ₦300,000 against the applicant in favour of the respondents,” the judge declared.