COURT ADJOURNS ANDY UBA’S N400M FRAUD CASE TO MARCH 17

Read Time:2 Minute, 26 Second

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, adjourned further proceedings in the alleged fraud case brought against a former senator of Anambra South Senatorial District, Andy Uba, by the Nigerian Police until March 17.

Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter to allow the amended charge to be served on the former senator and the other defendant in the suit.

In the amended charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/538/2024 and dated March 4, Uba faces two counts bordering on an alleged N400 million fraud.

Listed as defendants in the suit are Senator Uba and Benjamin Etu, while the Inspector General of Police is the complainant.

The amended charge, dated March 3, was signed by Abdulrashid Sidi.

The charge reads count one, “That you, Andy Uba, Benjamin Etu, and Hajiya Fatima (now at large), sometime in 2022, within the jurisdiction of this Court, conspired among yourselves to commit an offense, to wit: obtaining by false pretenses. You made a representation to George Uboh that you had perfected a way to secure the appointment of Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) for any interested person who could pay the sum of N400,000,000 (Four Hundred Million Naira). This representation, which you knew to be false, thereby constitutes an offense contrary to Section 8 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offenses Act, 2006”.

Count two, “That you, Andy Uba, Benjamin Etu, and Hajiya Fatima (now at large), sometime in 2022, within the jurisdiction of this Court, conspired among yourselves with the intent to defraud. You induced George Uboh by making a representation to him that you had perfected a way to secure the appointment of Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) for any interested person who could pay the sum of N400,000,000 (Four Hundred Million Naira). This representation, which you knew to be false, led to the collection of the money, thereby constituting an offense contrary to Section 1(2) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offenses Act, 2006.”

At the resumed sitting, Lukeman Anthony appeared for the prosecution, while C.F. Odiniru represented the defendants.

The prosecution counsel, Anthony, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for arraignment and that the charge had been amended.

Justice Ekwo inquired when the amended charge was filed. In response, the police counsel stated that the amended charge was filed on March 4.

Justice Ekwo then asked if the defendants had been served. The prosecution counsel responded negatively, saying, “No, my Lord.”

In light of this development, the judge inquired how many days the prosecution would need to effect service of the amended charge on the defendants. Anthony requested seven days.

Justice Ekwo directed that the amended charge be served on the first and second defendants and adjourned the matter accordingly.