A Federal Court in Lagos has scheduled March 17 for ruling on various applications challenging its jurisdiction to hear a 13-count charge filed against the former chairman of First Bank Nigeria (FBN), Oba Otudeko, and three others, over alleged fraud.

The court set the date after hearing arguments from the counsel representing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the defendants.

EFCC filed a 13-count charge against Otudeko; former Managing Director of First Bank Plc, Olabisi Onasanya; former Honeywell board member, Soji Akintayo; and Anchorage Leisure Limited.

In the case, marked FHC/L/20C/2025, the defendants were accused of obtaining N12.3 billion from First Bank under false pretences.

When the case was called yesterday, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) appeared for the prosecution.

Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) appeared for the first defendant, while Mr. Olasupo Shashore (SAN) appeared for the second defendant.

Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) represented the third defendant, and Mr. Ade Adedeji (SAN) appeared for the fourth defendant.

Mr. Babajide Koku (SAN) appeared as a watching brief for the nominal complainant, First Bank of Nigeria.

Addressing the court, Olanipekun informed the court that Otudeko had filed an application dated January 28, 2025, explaining his absence.

The application included an affidavit detailing Otudeko’s absence from court.

It stated that the Honeywell Group Chairman left Nigeria on January 16, 2025 for medical treatment in the United Kingdom, arriving at Heathrow Airport the same day.

Olanipekun maintained that Otudeko left the country legally and did not abscond to avoid trial. He added that Otudeko travelled overseas several days before the charge was filed.

The counsel informed Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke that Otudeko’s travel documents would confirm his departure on January 16.

He emphasised that Otudeko was unaware of any charges by EFCC at the time of his departure.

Other defence counsels briefly introduced their applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

In response, the EFCC prosecutor informed the court that he had complied with the court’s directive, issuing substituted service of the charge to the first, third, and fourth defendants and attaching proof of service.

However, he stated that he had received processes from the first defence counsel confirming that the first defendant was not within the jurisdiction.

Oyedepo also mentioned receiving numerous motions from other defence counsels challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

He argued that the priority should be determining when the defendants could return to court to take their plea, as the first defendant was absent.

Olanipekun replied, informing the court that he had served the defendant’s application on the prosecution, and they had seven days to reply, but had not done so yet.

He argued, citing the authority of Barclays Bank vs. CBN, that the court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction before proceeding with the case.

He posed a hypothetical scenario to illustrate that a defendant could raise certain pleas, such as “autrefois acquit” (previously acquitted) or “autrefois convict” (previously convicted), before the arraignment could proceed.

Olanipekun asserted that the case reflected a fiduciary relationship in which payment had already been made in full, with an agreement not to press charges.

He urged the court to schedule a hearing for the defence’s application, stressing that such motions should not be dismissed just because they may be seen as tedious by the prosecution.

In response, Oyedepo argued that the arraignment should take precedence before any application was entertained.

He cited the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Yahaya Bello and referenced section 396 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

He emphasised that criminal proceedings must be regulated by the ACJA, which aimed to address defects in the criminal justice system.

Oyedepo stated that the case should proceed to arraignment and the court should not delay further.

Olanipekun, however, argued that it was important for the parties to avoid unnecessary delays and distractions.

Citing judicial authorities, such as FRN vs. Idahosa and Shema Ibrahim vs. FRN, he contended that the court had previously dispensed with the defendant’s physical presence in court.

The third defence counsel, Ogunwumiju, argued that the court should hear the defence’s objections before proceeding with the case.

He specifically requested the court to quash or decline jurisdiction over counts 1 to 10, citing abuse of judicial process and lack of prima facie evidence.

He also sought an order restraining EFCC from arresting, detaining, or harassing the third defendant while the motion was pending.

He argued that a civil banker-customer relationship should not be treated as a criminal charge and emphasised that hearing the objections first would be in the interest of justice, as the defence would forfeit the right to object once the plea was taken.

The second defence counsel, Shashore, acting as an amicus curiae (friend of the court), urged the court to consider the defence applications before proceeding with the arraignment.

He emphasised that it would be unfair to require the defendants to plead to a charge that might eventually be quashed.

Fourth defence counsel, Adedeji, argued, citing the case of Nwadike vs. FRN, that court processes should not be used to oppress citizens.

He argued that the case at hand was based on a civil transaction and should not be tried as a criminal case. He further claimed that the prosecution was motivated by malice.

In his reply, Oyedepo argued that the defence counsel’s citations were out of context and not relevant to the charges before the court.

He reiterated that the court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges and urged the court to order the first defendant (Otudeko) to be present at the next hearing.

However, Olanipekun responded that the first defendant was under medical review and had been advised to remain in the UK until a comprehensive evaluation had been conducted.

He requested that the court adjourn the case for the hearing of the defence applications instead of issuing a summons for the defendant to appear.

After hearing arguments from all parties, Aneke adjourned the case until March 17 for ruling.