The Chief Registrar of FHC, Yahaya Shafa, made this known on Thursday in Abuja in a statement titled: “Notice to Lawyers and the General Public.”

Shafa said that the court would be in operation between 10am and 2pm.

He said the development became necessary in order for the court to meet up with the limited time frame for filing pre-election matters.

“The Federal High Court of Nigeria formally notifies all legal practitioners that Registries in all Divisions of the Federal High Court would be open between 10:00am and 2:00pm Weekends and Public Holidays for Filing of Pre-Election Matters Only.

“This has become expedient to meet up with the limited time frame for filing pre-election matters,” the statement reads.

Our correspondent reports that though the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) issued election timetable and schedule of activities for the conduct of the 2027 general elections, the timeline is still being challenged in court.

The post Federal High Court to open registries weekends, public holidays for pre-election cases appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice James Omotosho also held that the 2027 election timetable issued by INEC was valid and legally issued, “stating timeframe within which political parties are to hold their primaries and stating timeframe for the submission of membership registers of political parties.”

Justice Omotosho made the declaration while delivering a judgement in a suit filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against INEC in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/720/2026.

Our correspondent reports that the SDP had, in the originating summons filed on April 9, posed five questions for determination.

One of the questions was “whether having regard to Sections 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant’s powers to receive notices, attend, observe and monitor party primaries extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties must conduct their primaries.”

The plaintiff, therefore, sought seven reliefs, including an order of perpetual injunction restraining the electoral umpire from enforcing any timelines inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.

It also prayed the court to declare that “the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 120 days statutory period in section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 by its timetable or press release dated 27th March, 2026.”

But INEC, in its defence, stated that its powers are not limited to receiving notices and attending primary elections but to organise and supervise elections and issue timetable to ensure compliance with the Electoral Act.

It stated that the timetable so issued would not interfere with the internal affairs of the plaintiff (SDP) and that the primaries of the SDP had even yet to start.

It further argued that its timetable released did not conflict with the provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act and same did not bridge the timeline of the party.

INEC, which argued that the suit was premature and academic, urged the court to dismiss it.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho said that though the law is trite that a subsidiary legislation must not be at variance with the principal act, INEC is empowered to issue subsidiary legislation such as election timetable pursuant to Section 151 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“The issuance of a timetable is to give effect to the Electoral Act especially with all its various timelines.

“The nature of the timetable ensures order and proper arrangement in the activities of political parties in the lead up to elections.

“Election timetable is a chain of events or actions stating from timeframe for the submission of membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of the primaries and the election, timeframe for primaries and eventually gets to the real voting.

“Election timetable is not only date for voting but preparatory steps – which are conditional to valid election and nominations must be included in election timetable.

“Election Timetable without date for submission of parties’ membership register, timeframe for primaries, etc is inchoate.

“Without this timetable, there would be chaos in our Electoral system.

“This court is therefore convinced that the defendant is empowered by the Electoral Act to issue timetables for elections.

“To further buttress this, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is the grundnorm of all laws in Nigeria alluded to this under Section 285(14) of the Constitution (as amended).”

The judge said on the issue of the timeframe for the substitution and withdrawal of ‘nominated candidates, it is provided for under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“A candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in writing signed by him together with a sworn affidavit delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election and the political party shall convey such withdrawal and the sworn affidavit to the commission not later than 90 days to the election.”

According to the judge, from the above, political parties are by law allowed the liberty to submit the withdrawal and sworn affidavit to the defendant not later than 90 days to the election.

“The defendant in the revised timetable however stipulated the 22nd of August, 2026 and 19th September, 2026 as the date for candidates for Presidential and National Assembly elections and Governorship and House of Assembly.

“These dates are far larger than the 90 days allowed by the Electoral Act, 2026.

“This means that the timetable has reduced the timeframe for parties to submit withdrawal to the defendant.

“The defendant therefore acted ultra vires its powers by reducing the time allowed by political parties to convey withdrawals and sworn affidavit to the deferidant contrary to the 90 days stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2026.

” In the final analysis, the defendant is empowered by law to issue timetable for elections but it must do so in compliance with the time frames in the Electoral Act 2026.

“Therefore, the claims of the plaintiff (SDP) succeeds in part,” the judge held.

Justice Omotosho, consequently, declared that the suit was not statute barred contrary to INEC’s submission as the March 27 press statement originated the action, having been filed on April 9.

He declared that the election timetable is a chain of events or actions which include submission of membership register of political parties to be used for the purpose of primaries and fix timeframes within which political parties are to organise their primary elections for the purpose of the stated 2027 election.

The judge declared that INEC is empowered by the 1999 constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2026 to issue timetable for elections and to even alter same as it deems fit.

Justice Omotosho, however, held that the timetable must comply strictly, with the timeframes in the Electoral Act, 2026.

“This honourable court hereby declares that the defendant is also empowered to alter the timetable for the ultimate aim of giving effect to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Electoral Act.

“This court hereby declares that the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or vary the 90 days period for substitution of candidates under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

“This court hereby declares that the defendant cannot abridge the time stipulated in Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 given to political parties to submit the names of their candidates at feast 120 days to the date of election.

“This court hereby declares that the defendant is hereby ordered to amend the Election Timetable 2027 and Schedule of Activities in compliance with Sections 29 (1) & 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

” This honourable court hereby declared that the defendant requesting for membership register of political parties and giving timeframe within which to conduct primaries is not ultra vires the powers of the defendant.

“This court hereby declares that the deadline of Aug. 29, 2026 and Sept. 16, 2026 fixed for political parties to submit nomination forms for candidates for Presidential and National Assembly Elections, as well as Governorship and House of Assembly Elections, is void to the extent of its Inconsistencies with the clear provisions of Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026.

The post Court affirms INEC’s power to issue election timetable, schedule of activities appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

The Department of State Services (DSS) charged Idris Omeiza, Al Qasim Idris, Jamiu Abdulmalik, Abdulhaleem Idris, and Momoh Abubakar with nine-counts of terrorism.

Justice Emeka Nwite made this known after lawyers to the prosecution and the defence adopted their final written addresses and presented their arguments for and against the case.

Justice Nwite said that judgment would be reserved to a date to be communicated to parties.

The judge told lawyers to the parties that they would receive notice from the court once the judgment was ready, hinting that the notice could be within 24 hours.

In his final submission, lawyer to the prosecution, Ayodeji Adedipe, SAN, urged the court to convict the defendants and impose the maximum sentence of death in view of the enormity of the crime they allegedly committed.

On his part, the defendants’ lawyer, Abdullahi Mohammad, prayed the court to discharge and acquit his clients on the grounds that the prosecution was unable to establish its case against them.

Our correspondent reports that a total of 41 worshippers were killed during the terror attack on the church, while over 140 others suffered various injuries.

The DSS had called 11 witnesses to establish the allegations against the defendants in the trial that began on Aug. 1, 2025.

The trial court had admitted the confessional statements of the defendants following the conclusion of the trial- within-trial conducted to establish that the witnesses’ statements were voluntarily given.

The DSS had, in the commencement of the trial, sought an accelerated hearing which was granted by the court.

The post Court reserves judgment in Owo terror attack case, as DSS seeks capital punishment appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice Peter Lifu, in a judgment, also awarded a N20 million fine against Jideobi and in favour of the ex-president.

He equally awarded a one million fine against the plaintiff and in favour of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).

Justice Lifu held that Jideobi lacked the legal right to have instituted the suit having not suffered any loss from his perceived Jonathan’s intention to vie for the next year poll.

The judge, who said that a Federal High Court in Yenagoa and an Appeal Court had already held that Jonathan was eligible to run, said he was bound by the decision of the appellate court.

The judge then described the lawyer’s suit as “an abuse of court process.”

Justice Lifu also dismissed the Jideobi’s motion seeking the judge’s withdrawal from the case for being frivolous.

Our correspondent reports that Jideobi had sued Jonatha, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and AGF as 1st to 3rf defendants respectively

The post Court dismisses eligibility suit against Jonathan, awards N21m fine against lawyer appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

The case, which was listed on the day’s cause list, could not proceed due to Justice Mohammed Umar’s absence.

Although the NDC’s lawyer, Vincent Ottaokpukpu, and the defence lawyers, including O.J. Opawale, were in court, the judge was said to be on another official engagement.

The matter was subsequently fixed for June 9 for hearing.

Our correspondent reports that Justice Umar had, on May 8, fixed today for the hearing of the case.

The NDC, in the suit, argued that the two sections are inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The NDC, which was registered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Feb. 5, had filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/635/2026.

The party, in the originating summons, sued the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) as 1st and 2nd defendants.

It also joined Senate President and Chairman of the National Assembly, Sen. Godswill Akpabio, and INEC as 3rd to 4th defendants respectively.

Ottaokpukpu, who filed the suit on March 27, prayed the court to grant their reliefs.

The lawyer sought an order striking down the provisions of Section 138 for being inconsistent with the compulsory provisions of Sections 65 (2) (a), 106 (1) (c), 131 (1) (d), 177 (1) (d) and 66 (1) (i), 107 (1) (i), 137 (1) (j) and 182 (1) (j) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He sought an order directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants to amend and re-enact a new provision of the Electoral Act, 2026 to restore “qualification” as a ground of challenging the return of any candidate into the seats of the House of Representatives, Senate, House of Assembly, president and governor.

He said this is in line with the provisions of Sections 65 (2) (a), 106 (1) (c), 131 (1) (d), 177 (1) (d) and 66 (1) (i), 107 (1) (i), 137 (1) (j) and 182 (1) (j) of the constitution.

Ottaokpukpu equally sought an order striking down Section 77 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2026 for being inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 40 and 65 (2) (b), 106 (1) (d), 231 (1) (c) and 177 (1) (c) of the 1999 Constitution, among others.

In the affidavit in support of the suit, Ezechi Adaobi, a litigation secretary in the law firm of V-C Ottaokpukpu & Associates, said NDC, as a stakeholder in the Nigerian electoral process, will in future elections field candidates for elections, including the office of the president.

She said the National Assembly, under the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ stewardship, had, on Feb. 18, passed the Electoral Act, 2026.

She said President Bola Tinubu, upon the recommendation of the AGF, assented to the Act of parliament on Feb. 19.

Adaobi stated that the NDC’s national legal adviser said he had read and understood all the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the new Act.

She said the legal adviser observed that Section 77(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026 provides that only members whose names are contained in the political party’s digital register transmitted to INEC, 21 days before a primary election or convention, will be eligible to participate in the primary elections.

She said this section is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which did not provide for duration which a citizen must be a member of a political party to be eligible to contest for an election.

Adaobi said from experience, members who are dissatisfied by the conduct of primaries in their respective parties usually seek refuge in other parties to enable them participate in the general elections.”

Adaobi, therefore, urged the court to grant their reliefs in the interest of justice.

But INEC, in its counter affidavit filed on April 27, disagreed with the NDC.

It argued that the constitutional and statutory roles of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants are provided by the constitution and the relevant enabling statutes, and not as characterised by the plaintiff.

INEC submitted that the Electoral Act, 2026 was validly passed by the National Assembly on Feb. 18 and duly assented to by President Bola Tinubu.

It said that the National Assembly passed the Electora! Act, 2026, in accordance with the 1999 Constitution.

The commission stated that President Tinubu assented to the Electoral Act, 2026 and that the same is now law within the federation.

It stated that the provisions of Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026 does not infringe upon the constitutional right of any person to form, participate in, or belong to any political party.

It stated that the period allotted for the conduct of party primaries, being from April 23 to May 30 (inclusive of resolution of disputes arising therefrom), is a period of 38 clear days in strict compliance with the Electoral Act, 2026 and the constitutional framework.

INEC, therefore, averred that by its timetable, political parties have a window of not less than the period prescribed by the timetable for the conduct of party primaries.

Our correspondent reports that Sen. Seriake Dickson, who represents the Bayelsa West Senatorial District, is currently the NDC’s national leader, while former Gov. Peter Obi of Anambra had been cleared to contest in the party’s presidential primary.

The post Court adjourns NDC’s suit against sections of Electoral Act appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu adjourned the matter following the inability of the EFCC’s lawyer, Oluwaleke Atolagbe, to file a report of compliance in respect of the earlier interim order granted against the properties.

Our correspondent reports that Justice Egwuatu had, on April 24, ordered the temporary forfeiture of the nine properties linked to Sylva, who is also a former Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, to the Federal Government.

The judge made the order after Atolagbe moved an ex-parte motion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2026, to the effect.

Justice Egwuatu also granted the EFCC’s request for the publication of the order in any two newspapers within 7 days from the date of receipt of the certified true copy of the order for interested person(s) to show cause within 14 days why a final order of forfeiture should not be made.

The affected assets are located across high-value areas in Abuja.

The judge then adjourned the matter until May 25 for a report of compliance.

Upon resumed hearing on Monday, Benson Ibezim appeared for properties listed in the EFCC’s schedule as 1 and 9.

The properties are four blocks of terraces at Dakibiyu and two blocks building at Garki, currently occupied by the National Information Technology Development Agency.

Alex Ejiesieme, SAN, represented parties seeking to show cause with respect to properties listed as 2 and 5 (a duplex with penthouse and office complex at Maitama and eight units of one bedroom flat at No. 8, Misratah Street, Wuse II, Abuja).

Ajayi Olowo, on its part, appeared for a property listed as 7 (two blocks with 12 units of flats at Thaba Tseka Crescent, Wuse II) in the schedule, while Emmanuellla Imonikeh represented the 3rd property listed as “one standalone duplex at Palm Springs Estate, Mpape.”

Atolagbe then informed the court that though about six parties had filed their affidavits to show cause in respect of the properties, he said no party had indicated interest in the three remaining properties in the schedule.

Our correspondent reports that the properties yet to be claimed include numbers 4, 6 and 8 in the schedule.

They include block of flats with 10 units of flats at Wuse Zone 4; block of flats with six units of flats at No. 1, Mubi Close; and one stand-alone duplex at No. 18, Nile Lake, Plot 1271, Maitama respectively.

The EFCC’s lawyer therefore informed the court that a motion on notice seeking a final forfeiture of the three properties to the Federal Government had been filed on May 22, since no one had shown cause why the assets should not be permanently forfeited.

The judge, however, said that the motion was not in the court filed.

When Atolagbe was asked if the parties, who had shown cause, had been served, he said only one of the parties was served.

The lawyer said the commission had complied with the earlier order of the court by publishing the enrolled order in Tribune and Punch Newspapers.

He, however, said he was yet to file an affidavit of compliance.

Justice Egwuatu directed Atolagbe to publish the motion on notice seeking final forfeiture of the three prioerties the way the enrolled order was published.

He also order him to serve the parties who were yet to be served and file his report of compliance on the earlier interim order in the interest of fair hearing.

The judge, who ordered the lawyer to also respond to the processes filed by the interested parties, adjourned the matter until July 16 for a report of compliance.

The post Court adjourns forfeiture case of properties linked to Sylva appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Our correspondent reports that Malami, who was also the former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), is charged alongside his wife, Hajiya Asabe Bashir, and son, Abdulaziz, by the EFCC.

The matter, which was fixed for continuation of trial before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja, could not proceed because Daudu was not in court.

Although the EFCC lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, was in court, including the defendants, their lawyer was absent.

It was, however, learnt that Daudu had earlier written to the court seeking an adjournment of the case.

In view of the development, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter until June 23 for continuation of trial.

NAN reports that two prosecution witnesses had, on March 16, told the court how millions of Naira were paid into companies’ accounts linked to Malami, Asabe and Abdulaziz.

The trio are standing trial on a 16-count money laundering charges involving N8. 7 billion.

The anti-graft agency had, on March 6, opened its case against the defendants by calling its 1st prosecution witness (PW-1), David Ajoma, a compliance officer with Sterling Bank.

Malami, his wife and son were re-arraigned on Feb. 27 over alleged money laundering charge but pleaded not guilty.

They were, thereafter, remanded in Kuje and Suleja Correctional Centres before their bail application was heard.

Justice Abdulmalik, on March 6, admitted them to a N200 million bail each with two sureties each in like sum.

The judge ordered that one of the sureties shall deposit his or her title deeds of a landed property located at Maitama or Asokoro, Abuja, to the registrar of the court.

The judge, who ordered the defendants to also deposit their international passports with the court, had since perfected their bail conditions.

The post Absence of Malami’s lawyer stalls N8.7bn money laundering trial appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Delivering judgment, Justice Peter Lifu, held that issues relating to discipline and suspension within a political party remained the internal affairs of the party and did not require judicial intervention.

Justice Lifu questioned why the same party officials who suspended the senator approached the court to validate their own action.

The judge held that it ought to have been the suspended senator challenging the disciplinary action if she felt aggrieved.

He said the plaintiffs’ decision to seek judicial endorsement of their action suggested a lack of confidence in their own action.

Justice Lifu subsequently described the suit as frivolous, baseless and unfounded.

Invoking Sections 82 and 83 of the Electoral Act, the judge awarded a cost of N10 million against the plaintiffs in favour of Kingibe.

He also imposed an additional N10 million fine on the plaintiffs’ counsel for filing what he described as a frivolous suit, with the sum equally payable to the senator.

Our correspondent reports that Kingibe, who represents the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in the Senate, was allegedly suspended on March 10 by the Wuse Ward Executives.

The executive members said they were suspending her for alleged anti-party activities and alleged disregard for the ADC constitution.

The suspension was said to have been ratified by two-thirds of the ward leadership.

The plaintiffs, Mr Okezuo Kanayo and Isaiah Samuel, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CV/539/2026, instituted the action on behalf of themselves and other ward members, with Kingibe listed as the sole defendant.

The suit was filed by Mr Kolawole Olowookere, SAN, who on behalf of the plaintiffs, sought an interim injunction restraining the senator from parading herself as a member of the ADC.

This they said was pending the determination of a motion on notice filed by them.

The plaintiffs also prayed the court to restrain her from attending party meetings, performing functions reserved for ADC members, or representing the party in any capacity.

They further asked the court to stop Kingibe from interfering in the administration of the ward, including access to the ward register and other official activities.

They argued that the senator was suspended for alleged anti-party activities, gross misconduct and confiscation of statutory ward records.

According to them, the suspension followed due process as stipulated in the ADC constitution and was ratified by a two-thirds majority of the executive members.

The plaintiffs also alleged that in spite of being notified of her suspension, Kingibe continued to hold parallel meetings.

They said she also continued to issue statements as an ADC member and allegedly used security personnel to intimidate members of the ward executive.

NAN further reports that at the last adjourned date, counsel to Kingibe, Mr Marshall Abubakar told the court that the case had no merit as it was purely an internal affair of the party.

Abubakar held that the case ought to be dismissed with punitive cost.

He said that the party had a procedure for addressing cases such as the one before the court but that that procedure was not followed by the plaintiffs.

“The defendant was never invited for anything nor was there any complaint against her,” he said.

He added that the plaintiffs had no locus to institute the suit as they were themselves suspended by the party.

The lawyer prayed the court to dismiss the matter in its entirety and award a N25 million punitive cost against the plaintiffs.

Counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr I.G Ogugua had prayed the court to dismiss the arguments of the defendant.

Ogugua said that there was nothing sacrosant about the internal affairs of a political party where the constitution was breached.

The post Court strikes out suit against Kingibe, fines plaintiffs, lawyer N10m each appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice Mohammed Umar, in a judgment delivered on a suit brought by Youth Party, held that INEC’s action imposed restrictive timeframes on political parties for the conduct of primaries and other pre-election activities contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.

Justice Umar held that INEC lacked the statutory power to fix or prescribe the timeframe within which political parties must conduct their primaries for the nomination of candidates for the 2027 general elections.

The plaintiff; Youth Party, had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/517/2026, sued INEC as sole defendant.

The plaintiff, in the originating summons dated and filed March 11, sought six reliefs.

Justice Umar granted all the plaintiff’s six reliefs.

The judge declared that INEC cannot lawfully abridge or limit the statutory periods provided under the Electoral Act in relation to submission of personal particulars of candidates, withdrawal and substitution of candidates, among others.

Justuce Umar, therefore, set aside the portions of INEC’s Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2027 General Elections which imposed timelines inconsistent with the Electoral Act, 2026.

“It is hereby ordered as follows:

“A declaration is hereby made that upon a proper consideration and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 29, 82 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the powers of the defendant to receive notice of party primaries and the personal particulars of candidates, and its duty to attend, observe and monitor such primaries, does not extend to fixing or prescribing the timetable within which political parties may conduct their primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the 2027 general elections.

“A declaration is made that having regards to Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 which requires political parties to submit the personal particulars of their candidates not later than 120 days to an election, the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by prescribing a shorter timeframe in its 2027 election timetable.

“A declaration is made that having regards to Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026 which permits political parties to withdraw and substitute candidates not later than 90 days to the conduct of an election, the defendant cannot lawfully abridge or limit that statutory period by fixing earlier deadline for the withdrawal and replacement of candidates in its 2027 election timetable.

“A declaration is made that having regards to Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory power to publish the final list of candidates for the 2027 general election before the 60 days minimum period prescribed by law.

“A declaration is made that upon a proper construction of Section 98 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the defendant does not possess the statutory power or authority to fix in its timetable for the 2027 general elections for campaign to end 2 days before the elections.

“A declaration is made that upon proper interpretation to Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2026, the time frame prescribed by the defendant for submission of membership registers for the conduct of primary elections is NOT applicable to primary elections conducted for the purpose of replacing withdrawn candidates.

“Order is hereby granted setting aside or nullifying the time-frames imposed by the defendant in its Revised Timetable and Schedule of Activities for 2027 General Election for the conduct of primary elections by political parties for the 2027 general elections,” the court held.

The court also ruled that the submission of personal particulars of candidates by their political parties for the 2027 general elections and campaigning for the 2027 general elections are inconsistent with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.

The post Court voids INEC timetable for conduct of 2027 polls appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after counsel to the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police, Maryam Kalejaiye, sought an adjournment to enable the investigating team produce him in court.

Upon resumed hearing in the matter, neither Omo-Agege nor his lawyer were in court.

Kalejaiye informed the court that though the matter was scheduled for Omo-Agege and his co-defendant, Sidali Efemana, to take their plea, she said the police investigating team was yet to get in touch with the suspects.

The lawyer, therefore, sought an adjournment to enable the prosecution do the needful and Justice Umar adjourned the matter until July 15 for the defendants to take their plea.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Sept. 29, 2025, the arraignment could not proceed due to the accused absence in court.

The arraignment was also stalled on March 20, 2025, before the former trial judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, because neither of the accused were in court.

However, Omo-Agege’s lawyer, Prof. J.E.O. Abugu, SAN, was in court.

Omo-Agege and Efemana of Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security were billed to take their plea on alleged fraud to the tune of over N40 million.

The I-G, in the five-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/ 75/2025, had named Omo-Agege and Efemana as 1st and 2nd defendants while Daniel Omughelli was listed as being at large.

In the charge dated Feb. 24, 2025, but filed Feb. 25, 2025, Omo-Agege, Efemana of Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, and Daniel Omughelli (now at large) sometime in 2022 were alleged to have conspired amongst themselves to commit the offence.

They were accused of criminal breach of trust, obtaining money under false pretense and issuance of dude cheque contrary to and punishable under Section 97(1) of the Penal Code Act.

The post Alleged fraud: Court fixes July 15 for arraignment of NBF president, Omo-Agege appeared first on NEWSVERGE.