The arraignment of Honeywell Group Chairman, Oba Otudeko, on charges of allegedly obtaining ₦12.3 billion from First Bank under false pretenses was stalled on Thursday due to his absence at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
While Otudeko was unavailable, his co-defendants, former First Bank Managing Director Olabisi Onasanya and former Honeywell Flour Mills board member Soji Akintayo, were present. A company linked to Otudeko, Anchorage Leisure Ltd, is also named as the fourth defendant in the case.
Representing Otudeko, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Wole Olanipekun informed the court that his client had filed an application explaining his absence. According to the application, Otudeko traveled to the United Kingdom on January 16, 2025, for medical treatment and arrived at Heathrow Airport the same day. Olanipekun emphasized that his client left Nigeria lawfully and had not fled the country.
Prosecution Seeks Arraignment First
The prosecution, led by EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), argued that the case had been adjourned specifically for arraignment and that the prosecution had properly served the defendants through substituted means. Oyedepo requested that Otudeko provide an undertaking specifying when he would return for the court proceedings.
However, the defense team, including SANs Olasupo Shasore, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, and Ade Adedeji, contended that their pending applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction should be heard before the arraignment.
Shasore argued that the absence of the first defendant should not delay proceedings on the jurisdictional challenge, while Adedeji maintained that hearing the objections first would prevent a potential waste of judicial resources should the court later find it lacks jurisdiction.
Olanipekun also stressed that the court must first determine its jurisdiction before proceeding with the case, citing legal precedents to support his argument.
Prosecution Cites Legal Precedents
Oyedepo countered the defense’s position, referencing Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which mandates that a defendant must enter a plea before raising objections to the charge’s validity or the court’s jurisdiction. He insisted that Otudeko’s presence was necessary and criticized the notion of conducting legal proceedings while the defendant remained in the UK.
He further argued that the case involved criminal allegations that could not be dismissed as a mere civil banker-customer dispute. Addressing claims that First Bank had already recovered its funds, he clarified that no private entity has the authority to dismiss a criminal allegation, as such matters are within the purview of the government and the EFCC.
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 until further review. He urged the court to prioritize hearing the defense’s applications rather than issuing a summons for Otudeko’s appearance.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Aneke adjourned the case to March 17, 2025, to rule on whether the jurisdictional objections would be heard before the arraignment.