Justice Ambrose Allagoa of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered a legal practitioner, Mr Nnamdi Kalu, to appear before the court on July 9, 2025, to provide explanations regarding the whereabouts of his client, Richard Ironbar Edemadem, who is accused of cyber-related fraud and has allegedly jumped bail.

The judge issued the directive during the ongoing trial of Edemadem and four others, namely: Samuel Okpapi, Nelson Ojovbo, Bamigbade Olushola, and ISD Technology Limited, who are standing trial on charges of tampering with the critical mobile telecommunications infrastructure of MTN Nigeria and illegally profiting from unsolicited messages sent to subscribers.

The prosecution, led by Mr Nnemeka Omewa of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), informed the court that Edemadem, the first defendant, had jumped bail and ceased communication with both his counsel and the court.

He further revealed that Mr Kalu, who represented the defendant at the early stage of the trial, had stopped appearing in court and was unreachable.

During the trial proceedings, Justice Alagoa queried the continued absence of the first defendant, especially as his name had come up repeatedly during the testimony of the EFCC’s witness.

Upon receiving the explanation from the prosecutor, the judge expressed concern that no attempt had been made to bring the sureties to account, as required when a defendant absconds.

Responding to the judge’s query, Omewa said the prosecution had made efforts to trace the sureties and review the bail bond documents.

However, they discovered that no valid documentation about the sureties or their contact addresses could be found in the court file.

Disturbed by the absence of such critical records, Justice Alagoa directed the absentee defendant’s counsel, Mr Kalu, to appear before the court on the next adjourned date to provide clarity on his client’s disappearance and explain his failure to participate further in the trial.

In the meantime, the trial resumed with the testimony of Mr Olamide Sadiq, the fourth prosecution witness and an investigating officer with the EFCC.

Sadiq detailed how the defendants fraudulently manipulated MTN’s telecom systems to send unsolicited messages to thousands of unsuspecting subscribers.

According to his testimony, the defendants, who were employed as IT professionals for various telecom value-added service providers, compromised MTN’s Critical Mobile Telecommunications Network System between 2017 and 2018, adding that by exploiting the system’s vulnerabilities, they deployed mass unsolicited messages that led to unauthorised deductions from subscribers’ airtime balances.

Sadiq explained that these illegal deductions were routed into multiple accounts linked to the defendants and their affiliated entities, notably ISD Technology Limited.

The stolen proceeds, totalling N36,837,438.20, were subsequently distributed among the conspirators, he said.

Following the witness’s testimony, the court adjourned the matter to July 9, 2025, for the continuation of the trial and to enable Mr Kalu to appear and address the court on the issue of his absconding client.

The EFCC had filed a three-count charge against the defendants, detailing their alleged roles in the multimillion-naira fraud.

On count one of the charges, the defendants, Richard Ironbar Edemadem, Samuel Okpapi, Nelson Ojovbo, Bamigbade Olushola, ISD Technology Limited, and a fugitive known only as “Sola”, were accused of conspiring to tamper with a critical mobile telecommunications network system.

This, the EFCC said, is contrary to Sections 27(6)(b) and 10 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, and punishable under the same law.

The second charge stated that the defendants were charged with unauthorised tampering with MTN’s network infrastructure, an offence also contrary to Section 10 of the Cybercrimes Act, punishable under the same provision.

Counts three of the charges posited that the defendants allegedly took possession of N36,837,438.20, which they reasonably ought to have known were proceeds of an unlawful act, namely, stealing, contrary to Sections 15(2)(d) and (6) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended), and punishable under the same.