•Oba Otudeko
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, sitting at the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos denied a request by EFCC to issue an arrest warrant for Dr. Oba Otudeko, Dr. Bisi Onasanya and others due to lack of formal service on the defendants.
The court addressed multiple motions during the session, including the prosecutor’s request for a warrant of arrest, which the Judge rejected due to the lack of formal service to the defendants, reports Vanguard.
The Judge granted an application for substituted service. The case has been adjourned to February 13 for arraignment.
Additionally, Bode Olanipekun, appearing for Dr Otudeko, sought an order restraining parties from irresponsible use of the media and the Judge advised all parties to exercise restraint in media engagement and urged journalists present to ensure accurate reporting of court proceedings.
The case has brought the EFCC under scrutiny for allegedly flouting procedural norms. Critics have faulted the agency for going public with the charges without first formally serving Otudeko and other implicated parties. Legal experts argue that this approach undermines the principle of fair hearing and could prejudice the public against the accused.
One lawyer, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, said: “The EFCC’s conduct flies in the face of Section 36(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Even more troubling is their disregard for Order 3, Rule 8 of the Federal High Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules, 2024, which clearly states that charges must be formally served before any public disclosures are made.”
The lawyer added that this procedural breach has subjected Otudeko and others to trial by media, creating unnecessary public distrust.
Observers have noted that the revival of a 12-year-old matter, which had been previously investigated by the EFCC, appears to coincide with the recent Extraordinary General Meeting request and ongoing tussle over shareholding control at FBN Holdings.
This development has raised eyebrows, with many suggesting it could be an attempt to influence or gain leverage in the contentious ownership dispute surrounding the financial institution.
They have also noted the potential reputational damage inflicted on Dr Otudeko and others involved.
The EFCC’s actions, they claim, have placed these individuals in the court of public opinion, raising questions about the impartiality of the forthcoming judicial process.
A legal expert noted: “These kinds of reckless actions by law enforcement agencies do more harm than good. They erode public trust in the system and unfairly tarnish the reputation of individuals involved.”
Dr Otudeko has categorically denied allegations levelled against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, which centre around his involvement with First Bank of Nigeria, where he served as a non-executive director and left about four years ago.
In a release, Dr Otudeko stated he is “confident that the truth will prevail in due course and looks forward to addressing these claims in the appropriate forum.”
Dr Onasanya, while stating that he has no interest in the control dispute at First Bank, also asserted about his record at First Bank that his “stellar reputation of integrity, built over four decades of impeccable professional service, cannot and will not be tarnished by these false allegations and incorrect charges.”
The case has been adjourned to February 13.
