N27bn fraud: Akingbola’s associates challenge court’s jurisdiction

Written by The Punch Friday, 16 July 2010

SIX associates of the former Chief Executive Officer of Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr. Erastus Akingbola, have filed separate applications, challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Lagos to try them over alleged N27bn fraud.

The six bankers are the Financial Controller, Intercontinental Bank, Akinkunmi Fabunmi; Head, Domestic Operations, Toyin Odesile; Head, Foreign Exchange, Ayoola Olabisi; Head, Corporate Treasury, Oluwatoyin Oyelade; General Manager, Intercontinental Capital Market Limited, Ayodele Thomas; and the General Manager, Tropics Securities Ltd and a director of the bank, Bayo Dada.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is prosecuting the bank officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal withdraw and transferring of about N27bn from the bank’s volt.

Also named as co-defendants in the charge against the accused are four firms allegedly linked with Akingbola. The firms are Tropics Securities Limited, Tropics Properties Ltd., Tropics Finance and Investment Ltd and Bankinson Nigerian Ltd.

The EFCC had earlier arraigned the accused persons before Justice Tijani Abubakar who is now at the Port Harcourt Division of the FHC.

The case file was subsequently assigned to a new judge, Justice Mohammed Idris while the accused were to be re-arraigned on an amended 23- count charge of alleged money laundering and related offences.

But at the resumed hearing of the case on Thursday, lawyers to some of the accused persons, Mr. Olatunde Adejuyigbe and Mr Abubakar Samshudeen, raised objection against the request of the EFCC’s lawyer, O Odiri, to re-arraign their clients.

They further drew the attention of the court to separate applications before it, challenging the jurisdiction to entertain the case.

In the applications filed on behalf of three of the accused persons, the applicants claimed that the proof of evidence before the court did not disclose any prima facie case against them.

Adejuyigbe and Samshudeen also argued that the court lacked the competence to hear the case and urged the court to dismiss the case against their clients.