•Blessing CEO in court
The Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has fixed June 9, 2026, to rule on the bail application of self-styled relationship therapist Blessing Nkiruka Okoro, popularly known as Blessing CEO, who is standing trial over an alleged ₦36 million property fraud.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu fixed the date after hearing submissions from counsel in the matter, reports Channels TV.
Counsel to the defendant, P.I. Nwafuru, informed the court that the bail application, dated May 15, 2026, was supported by a six-paragraph affidavit and five exhibits.
He urged the court to exercise its discretion and grant the defendant bail on liberal terms.
However, counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Suleiman Suleiman, opposed the application. He told the court that the Commission had filed a 28-paragraph counter-affidavit dated May 29, 2026, deposed to by its investigating officer, Bufa Regina Okangbe.
“We rely on all the depositions contained therein and the exhibits attached.
“At some point during the course of the investigation, the defendant stopped honouring invitations extended to her by the Commission.
“We urge Your Lordship not to accede to the request of the defence and instead order an accelerated hearing of the matter,” Suleiman submitted.
After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Dipeolu reserved ruling on the bail application until June 9, 2026.
Earlier, the prosecution called its first witness, EFCC investigator Bufa Regina Okangbe, who narrated how a trail of bank transactions, property records, and witness statements allegedly revealed that the defendant received ₦36 million from the petitioner for a property she did not own.
According to Okangbe, the Commission received a petition that was assigned to her team for investigation.
She said a Bank Verification Number (BVN) search conducted on the defendant revealed several bank accounts linked to her.
“Following this, letters of investigation were sent to the banks, while another letter was forwarded to the Lagos State Land Bureau to determine whether the property belonged to the defendant.
“The Commission also wrote to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) regarding the defendant’s company, Break or Makeup Limited.
“After analysing the defendant’s statements of account, she was invited to the Commission’s office and confronted with transactions traced to her and the petitioner.”
The witness further testified that the defendant made statements under caution in the presence of her lawyer and husband, admitting that the petitioner paid her ₦30 million.
Okangbe told the court that the response from the Lagos State Land Bureau revealed that the property in question did not belong to the defendant but to one Tunbosun Osobu.
The Commission subsequently invited Osobu, who appeared with his lawyer and son. According to the witness, he confirmed that he had leased the property to the defendant for three years and that the lease expired in 2023 before it was renewed in 2025.
The witness also told the court that the petitioner submitted the lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the defendant, alongside a tenancy acquisition form.
During the proceedings, the prosecution sought to tender several documents through the witness, including the petition dated February 18, 2025; statements allegedly made by the defendant on December 10, 11, 12, and 16, 2025; the tenancy acquisition form; the petitioner’s Zenith Bank statement of account in the name of Pipes and Barrel Limited; and the defendant’s GTBank and Access Bank statements.
However, the defence objected to the admissibility of the defendant’s statements, arguing that there was no endorsement showing the presence of a legal practitioner during the recording process. Counsel also contended that no video recording of the statement-taking had been produced before the court.
In response, Suleiman argued that the absence of a legal practitioner did not automatically render an extra-judicial statement inadmissible.
“The law only requires the presence of a legal practitioner or any person chosen by the defendant. The statements are very key to this matter, and we urge My Lord to admit them in evidence,” he submitted.
On the issue of the bank statements, Suleiman maintained that all statements tendered were accompanied by certificates of identification in compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
“The witness through whom the statements of account are being tendered is the investigating officer in this case, and the law recognises such authority as an exception to the hearsay rule,” he added.
In his ruling, Justice Dipeolu overruled the objections and admitted the documents in evidence.
The judge held, “Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) clearly provides that a suspect’s statement may be taken in the presence of a legal practitioner of his or her choice, a representative of the Legal Aid Council, a representative of a civil society organisation, or any other person chosen by the suspect.”
Continuing her testimony, Okangbe stated that the petitioner, through the company’s account, paid a total of N36 million to the defendant.
According to her, ₦25 million was transferred into the defendant’s GTBank account, while an additional ₦11 million was paid into her Access Bank account for the lease of a property located at No. 1B Tunbosun Osobu Street, Lekki, Lagos.
She further testified that an analysis of the defendant’s bank accounts revealed subsequent transfers, including ₦8 million to Mr and Mrs Osobu, ₦1.9 million to Beauty City by Lekki, ₦11 million to Lina Uzoma Okoro, the defendant’s mother, and ₦15 million to Kenneth Emeka Onuora.
Under cross-examination, the witness stated that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, being the complainant in the criminal proceedings, was not privy to any settlement arrangement allegedly entered into between the defendant and the petitioner.
She also told the court that she was unaware of any attempt by the defendant to refund ₦24 million to the petitioner, as claimed by the defence.
According to the witness, the petitioner had already commenced renovation work on the property before its owner, Tunbosun Osobu, allegedly appeared and ejected them from the premises.
Justice Dipeolu subsequently adjourned the matter until June 22, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.
The EFCC is prosecuting Okoro on a two-count charge bordering on obtaining money by false pretence and stealing.
One of the counts reads: “That you, OKORO BLESSING NKIRUKA, between July 14 and 17, 2024, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did obtain the sum of N36,000,000.00 (Thirty-six Million Naira) from Mrs Ifeyinwa Nonye Okoye under the false pretence of leasing a six-bedroom detached duplex situated at No. 1B, Tunbosun Osobu Street, Off Kuboye Road, Lekki, Lagos State, which representation you knew to be false, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.”
