By: Bayero Ade
The scheduled arraignment of Honeywell Group Chairman, Oba Otudeko, on charges of allegedly fraudulently obtaining ₦12.3 billion from First Bank was postponed on Thursday due to his absence at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
According to Afripost, While Otudeko was not present, his co-defendants—former First Bank Managing Director Olabisi Onasanya and ex-Honeywell Flour Mills board member Soji Akintayo—attended the proceedings. A company linked to Otudeko, Anchorage Leisure Ltd, is also listed as a defendant in the case.
Defense Explains Otudeko’s Absence
Otudeko’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), informed the court that his client had submitted an application detailing his absence. The document stated that Otudeko traveled to the United Kingdom for medical treatment on January 16, 2025, and arrived at Heathrow Airport the same day. Olanipekun emphasized that his client left Nigeria lawfully and had not evaded prosecution.
EFCC Pushes for Immediate Arraignment
The prosecution, represented by EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), insisted that the case had been scheduled for arraignment and that all defendants had been properly served through substituted means. He requested an undertaking from Otudeko confirming when he would return to face trial.
However, defense lawyers, including Olasupo Shasore (SAN), Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), and Ade Adedeji (SAN), argued that their applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction should be addressed before any arraignment.
Shasore contended that Otudeko’s absence should not delay the hearing of the jurisdictional objections, while Adedeji stressed that determining the court’s jurisdiction first would prevent unnecessary legal proceedings if it was later ruled that the court lacked authority over the case.
Olanipekun further emphasized that jurisdiction must be established before moving forward, citing legal precedents to support his position.
Prosecution Cites Legal Provisions
Oyedepo countered the defense’s arguments, referencing Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which stipulates that a defendant must enter a plea before raising objections regarding the charge’s validity or the court’s jurisdiction. He maintained that Otudeko’s physical presence was crucial, dismissing the idea of legal proceedings continuing while the defendant remained abroad.
He also refuted claims that the case was a mere civil dispute, insisting that criminal allegations cannot be dismissed simply because a financial institution recovered its money. He stressed that only the government and the EFCC have the authority to decide on prosecutorial actions.
Court Sets March 17 for Ruling
In response, Olanipekun reiterated that Otudeko was undergoing medical evaluation in the UK and had been advised to remain there for further assessment. He urged the court to hear the jurisdictional objections before issuing any order for his client’s appearance.
After considering submissions from both parties, Justice Aneke adjourned the matter to March 17, 2025, to rule on whether the jurisdictional challenge should be heard before the arraignment.
Leave a Reply