A Federal High Court in Lagos has scheduled March 17, 2025, to rule on an application filed by Honeywell Group Chairman, Oba Otudeko, challenging the court’s jurisdiction in a N12.3 billion fraud case brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Otudeko, alongside former First Bank Managing Director Olabisi Onasanya, ex-Honeywell board member Soji Akintayo, and Anchorage Leisure Limited, faces a 13-count charge over allegations of obtaining money under false pretence.
However, the defendants have filed motions arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
During the hearing on Thursday, Otudeko’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), informed the court that a fresh application was filed on January 29, 2025, challenging jurisdiction.
Similarly, the third and fourth defendants also filed objections on February 10. They urged the court to resolve these issues before proceeding with arraignment.
In a related development, counsel for the third defendant argued that the case could proceed despite Otudeko’s absence, as he had submitted an affidavit stating he was in the UK for medical treatment.
Counsel for the third defendant, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, similarly, informed the court that on February 10, 2025, he filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court which he said, has been served on the prosecution. The same application was also filed by counsel for the fourth defendant, A. Adedeji, SAN and served on the prosecution, the statement said.
However, EFCC’s lead prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), opposed the request, citing Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
Oyedeoi maintained that preliminary objections could only be heard after the defendants had entered a plea.
“The law is clear—plea must be taken first before any objection can be raised,” Oyedepo stated. “Allowing otherwise would set a dangerous precedent where a defendant stays away while lawyers argue in their absence.”
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke who precised over the case, however, adjourned the case to March 17, 2025, for a ruling on the jurisdictional challenge.
The statement reads further: Oyedepo further argued that: “The approach by the defence is taking is taking us back to Egypt where we have left. The application is incurably defective. It is dead on arrival. I should not dignify an illegality. The law says you can’t raise it. I urge the court to adjourn for arraignment and then after the plea of the defendant, objections can be raised. Except there is amendment to Section 396 of ACJA, I urge your lordship not to accede to the request of the defence. Don’t give judicial blessings to the implied conduct of the defendant to the effect that I stay in the house and my lawyer will deal with it. Ask him to come.
“No private citizen whether corporate or entity has the requisite power to condone criminal allegations or compound an offence. It cannot be said that there is no prima facie case. The provision of 396(2) divests my lord of the requisite power to hear an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court or charge before the plea is taken. Those prayers cannot be entertained because the law says so.”
