A significant legal battle unfolded on Thursday at the Federal High Court in Lagos as the case against Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, and his co-defendants progressed amidst a contentious debate over the court’s jurisdiction. Otudeko, charged with allegedly obtaining ₦12.3 billion from First Bank under false pretenses, was absent during the arraignment due to ongoing medical treatment in the United Kingdom. His co-defendants Olabisi Onasanya, former Managing Director of First Bank, Soji Akintayo, a former board member of Honeywell Flour Mills PLC, and Anchorage Leisure Ltd., a company linked to Otudeko—were present in court.
Representing Otudeko, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Wole Olanipekun informed the court that his client had filed an application dated January 28, 2025, explaining his absence. According to the application, Otudeko left Nigeria lawfully on January 16, 2025, for medical treatment in the UK, arriving at Heathrow Airport the same day. Olanipekun emphasized that Otudeko had not absconded but rather sought necessary healthcare abroad.
The prosecution, led by EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), reminded the court that the matter had been adjourned specifically for the arraignment of the defendants. The prosecution had followed the court’s directive to serve the defendants via substituted means. Oyedepo requested an undertaking from Otudeko regarding his return to Nigeria for the arraignment, arguing that the proceedings should not be delayed indefinitely.
In contrast, defense counsels representing the defendants argued that their applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction must be heard and determined before any arraignment takes place. Counsel for the second, third, and fourth defendants—Olasupo Shasore (SAN), Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), and Ade Adedeji (SAN)—maintained that resolving these preliminary objections is critical to ensuring fair trial procedures.
Shasore contended that Otudeko’s absence should not hinder the hearing of the jurisdictional challenge, citing the court’s discretion to address such matters even in the defendant’s absence. He highlighted that failing to hear this application could result in wasted judicial time if the court later determines it lacks jurisdiction. Similarly, Adedeji stressed that dismissing the motion simply because it might seem tedious would amount to injustice.
Olanipekun cited landmark cases like Barclays Bank & Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to underscore the principle that courts have the authority to initially assume jurisdiction to determine whether they possess it. He urged the court to schedule a hearing for the defendants’ applications, emphasizing that motions challenging jurisdiction should not be dismissed arbitrarily.
In response, Oyedepo referenced Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which mandates that preliminary objections to the validity of charges can only be heard after a plea has been taken. He argued that taking a plea is a prerequisite to challenging the charge’s validity or the court’s jurisdiction. Referring to the case of Yahaya Bello , Oyedepo insisted that allowing the defendants to bypass this process would undermine procedural fairness.
Olanipekun countered by citing FRN vs. Idahosa and Shema vs. FRN , asserting that the court had previously dispensed with the physical presence of defendants when deciding interlocutory applications. He cautioned against unnecessary delays and distractions, urging the court to prioritize justice over rigid adherence to formalities.
Counsel for the third defendant, Ogunwumiju, argued that treating what he described as a civil banker-customer relationship as a criminal charge raises fundamental concerns about the nature of the allegations. He submitted that hearing the jurisdictional objection first aligns with the interest of justice, as the defense risks forfeiting its right to object once a plea is entered. Furthermore, Ogunwumiju pointed out that documents before the court indicate the bank had recovered its funds and no longer intended to pursue charges.
Adedeji, representing the fourth defendant, echoed similar sentiments, arguing that the case stemmed from a civil transaction and should not be treated criminally. He accused the prosecution of acting out of malice and warned against using court processes to oppress citizens. Referencing Nwadike vs. FRN , he emphasized the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted legal persecution.
Oyedepo dismissed these arguments as irrelevant and out of context, insisting that only the government or EFCC has the authority to decide whether to prosecute alleged offenses. He reiterated that there was no evidence showing that the government had made any prosecutorial decisions concerning the case. Additionally, he maintained that the court retained jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge.
After carefully considering submissions from all parties, Justice Aneke adjourned the case until March 17 to rule on whether to hear the arguments challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Olanipekun requested that the court avoid issuing a summons for Otudeko’s appearance, noting that his client remained under medical review and had been advised to stay in the UK until completing a comprehensive evaluation.
This development underscores the complexity of high-profile corruption cases in Nigeria, where disputes over jurisdiction and procedural fairness often delay substantive hearings. As the legal drama unfolds, stakeholders await Justice Aneke’s ruling, which could shape the trajectory of the case and set important precedents for future trials involving similar issues.
For now, the fate of the Honeywell Group fraud case hangs in the balance, with competing interests vying to influence how the proceedings unfold. Whether the court opts to prioritize arraignment or resolve jurisdictional challenges first will likely determine the speed and efficiency of the trial, impacting both the defendants and the broader public’s perception of justice in Nigeria’s legal system.
