ARRAIGNMENT OF LAND SPECULATORS STALLED IN ABUJA COURT OVER DEFENDANTS’ ABSENCE
Read Time:2 Minute, 42 Second
By Aishat Momoh. O.
The scheduled arraignment of two land speculators and their company before the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Jikwoyi/Azhata, Abuja, was on Monday stalled due to the absence of the defendants in court.
The defendants Adama Andrew, Ifeanyi Christopher, and their firm, Andreams Global Properties Limited are facing a 16-count charge brought against them by the Nigeria Police. The charges border on conspiracy and obtaining money under false pretence, contrary to the provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006.
In the charge marked CR/344/25, the prosecution alleges that the defendants conspired to defraud Anyisouth Global Nigeria Limited of N57 million under the pretext of selling three and a half hectares of land at Hilltop Extension 11, Kurudu, FCT, Abuja.
Count One of the charge reads in part: “That you, Adama Andrew, Ifeanyi Christopher and Andreams Global Properties Limited, sometime between October and December 2023, at Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with intent to defraud, did conspire amongst yourselves to commit a felony to wit: fraudulently obtaining the total sum of Fifty-Seven Million Naira (₦57,000,000.00) from Anyisouth Global Nigeria Limited under the false pretence that you were selling to him three and a half hectares of land”
When the matter came up for arraignment, prosecution counsel Kalu Orji informed Justice Mohammed Zubairu that although the defendants had been duly served with the charge, they were not present in court.
“My Lord, the matter is slated for arraignment, but I can’t see the defendants. They have, however, been duly served with the charge,” Orji said.
Counsel to the 1st and 3rd defendants, Chuks Ebunu, explained that his client, Adama Andrew, was bereaved and could not attend court. Meanwhile, counsel to the 2nd defendant, Fidelis Akporia, stated that his client was only served with court processes after close of work on Friday and needed time to hand over his duties before attending court.
Akporia said, “Actually, they had been calling him before Friday to come to the station, but didn’t disclose the reason. He is on bail, so there is nothing to hide. When he went to the station on Friday evening, he was served with the court processes. He had come from his workplace and didn’t expect to be served.”
The prosecution counsel accepted the explanation from the 1st defendant’s counsel but objected to the excuse provided on behalf of the 2nd defendant.
“It is unfortunate it involves a bereavement; my only issue is that I should have been informed earlier. Regarding the second defendant, I seriously object to the excuse that there is no one for him to hand over to,” Orji said.
In his ruling, Justice Zubairu acknowledged that the service on the 2nd defendant was late and allowed additional time for appearance.
“You served him on Friday. I believe he needs more time. I will give you another date before vacation,” the judge ruled.
However, following a consensus among the lawyers that the matter be scheduled after the court’s vacation, the judge adjourned the arraignment to October 6, 2025.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0