Court delays land fraud arraignment as defendants fail to appear, citing bereavement and late notice.
Justice Zubairu adjourns ₦57 million case to October 6 after hearing counsels’ explanations.
The scheduled arraignment of two alleged land fraud suspects was on Monday delayed at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Jikwoyi/Azhata, Abuja, due to their absence from the courtroom.
The defendants Adama Andrew, Ifeanyi Christopher, and their company, Andreams Global Properties Limited are facing a 16-count charge filed by the police. The charges revolve around allegations of conspiracy and obtaining money under false pretence, in violation of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006.
According to the first count of the charge, marked CR/344/25, the defendants are accused of defrauding Anyisouth Global Nigeria Limited of ₦57 million between October and December 2023. They allegedly collected the money under the guise of selling three and a half hectares of land located at Hilltop Extension 11, Kurudu, Abuja.
When the case was called for arraignment, the prosecution counsel, Kalu Orji, informed Justice Mohammed Zubairu that none of the defendants were in attendance, despite being properly served with court summons.
“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 stated.
Counsel representing the 1st and 3rd defendants, Chuks Ebunu, explained that his client could not attend court because he was bereaved.
For the 2nd defendant, his lawyer, Fidelis Akporia, told the court that his client was served late—after business hours on Friday. Akporia said the late notice left his client, an electrical engineer, with insufficient time to prepare and hand over responsibilities at work.
“Actually, they had been calling him before Friday to come to the station, but they never disclosed the reason. When he went in on Friday evening, he was served with the court papers. He didn’t expect it. He needs time to tidy up things at his workplace before appearing in court,” Akporia said, assuring the court that his client was ready to attend proceedings at the next hearing.
While the prosecution counsel accepted the explanation regarding the bereavement of the 1st defendant, he contested the reason given for the 2nd defendant’s absence.
“I have heard the submission of the 1st and 3rd defendants’ counsel. It is unfortunate it involves a bereavement; my only concern is that I should have been notified earlier. As for the 2nd defendant, I seriously object to the claim that there was no time to hand over at work,” Orji argued.
Justice Zubairu ruled that the explanation given for the 2nd defendant’s absence was reasonable, given the timing of the court summons.
“You served him on Friday. I believe he needs more time. I will give you another date before the court goes on vacation,” the judge said.
Both prosecution and defense agreed to postpone the arraignment until after the court’s vacation. Justice Zubairu subsequently adjourned the matter to October 6 for arraignment.
