Judge frowns at defence’s time-wasting tactic in Saleh Mamman trial

.As Abuja court sets March 25 to decide on $13m EFCC versus Oceangate forfeiture case

 

BLESSING OMALE, Abuja

 

Justice Maryann Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday cautioned defence lawyers against actions capable of delaying proceedings in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, who is facing multiple corruption-related charges brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Mamman is standing trial alongside seven others Mustapha Abubakar Bida, Joseph Omotayo Adewunmi, Ben Nsikak, Stephen Ojo, Oladipo Adebowale, Michael Achua and Ogunjobi Olusila, on a nine-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence and intent to defraud.

The alleged offences involve a total sum of ₦31.07 billion.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, Justice Anenih expressed displeasure at what she described as attempts by the defence to stall the commencement of trial.

The judge reacted to an objection raised by counsel to the second defendant, Temitayo Sonuyi, SAN, who argued that the trial should not proceed pending the determination of an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

Sonuyi informed the court that he had filed two applications on December 5 and December 10, 2025, questioning the competence of the charge and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.

He urged the court to hear and determine the applications before taking any further steps in the trial.

However, Justice Anenih declined to take arguments on the applications, noting that the prayers contained in the affidavit were not ripe for hearing.

She explained that the court had not had sufficient time to study the processes, adding that the final application was not yet in the court’s file.

“I have listened to both parties. However, reading the prayers, I cannot take the prayers in the application when I have not seen or read it.

“It is not ripe for hearing at this point, and the final process is not in the case file before me,” the judge said.

She added that the court could not afford to sit without making progress, stressing that proper procedure required that applications be filed and brought before the court in good time to allow for careful consideration.

“I cannot come here and sit down and waste time for nothing to be done today. Counsel, please let us proceed with the trial. When we come on the next adjourned date, I can deliver my ruling,” Justice Anenih stated.

Earlier, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, told the court that the EFCC had responded to the jurisdictional challenge, noting that the second defendant was served with a counter-affidavit on January 6, 2026.

He further disclosed that moments before the sitting, his attention was drawn to a fresh response filed by the defence to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit.

Oyedepo urged the court to allow the trial to proceed, informing the judge that the prosecution was fully prepared and had witnesses present in court.

He argued that the applications could be taken at a later date to avoid unnecessary delay and waste of judicial time.

Following the court’s position, Sonuyi sought leave to withdraw his affidavit in response to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit, assuring the court that he would take steps to regularise his processes.

Meanwhile, counsel to the sixth defendant, J. A. Egwaede, told the court that the prosecution’s counter-affidavit was only served on him in court on Tuesday. He requested an adjournment to enable him study the document and file a reply.

In her ruling, Justice Anenih held that, in the interest of justice, the sixth defendant should be given adequate time to respond, especially as the issue of jurisdiction must be resolved to determine the proper course of the trial. She therefore granted an adjournment.

The case was adjourned to February 18 for ruling on the pending applications, and March 11 and March 25, 2026, for continuation of trial.

The EFCC is prosecuting the defendants over alleged financial crimes linked to power sector projects during Mamman’s tenure as Minister of Power.

 

.As Abuja court sets March 25 to decide on $13m EFCC versus Oceangate forfeiture case

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed March 25, 2026, for ruling on a motion filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking the final forfeiture of $13 million allegedly linked to Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited, a company associated with businesswoman Aisha Achimugu.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter on Monday after hearing final submissions from counsel to the EFCC, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), and counsel to Oceangate, Darlington Ozurumba.

The funds, currently under interim forfeiture, are said by the anti-graft agency to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

The court had earlier ordered the EFCC to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national daily to allow any interested party to show cause why the money should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

Following the publication, Oceangate filed an affidavit to show cause, laying claim to the $13 million and disputing the EFCC’s allegation that the funds were illicit.

The company maintained that the money was legitimately sourced and used to pay signature bonuses for its interests in two oil licences, Petroleum Prospecting Licences (PPL) 302 and PPL 3007 which it said it won in 2024.

In a detailed counter-affidavit, the EFCC insisted that investigations revealed the funds were derived from unlawful sources, alleging that part of the money originated from contractors engaged by the Lagos State Government.

The commission also drew the court’s attention to a previous forfeiture.

On September 15, 2025, the same court granted the EFCC’s application for the final forfeiture of $7 million recovered at a Providus Bank branch in Ikoyi, Lagos, after no individual or company came forward to claim the funds.

That earlier forfeiture, the EFCC said, was also linked to Achimugu and her subsidiary, Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas, in connection with a controversial cash transaction.

Challenging Oceangate’s claim of ownership, the EFCC said the deponent to the company’s affidavit to show cause, Iliya Wakil, was merely a nominal director with no shareholding in Oceangate.

According to the commission, Wakil is an employee of Felak Concept Limited and its related entities, from which he has consistently drawn his salary, with no record of remuneration from Oceangate.

The EFCC further alleged that Wakil admitted in an extra-judicial statement that he took instructions from Oceangate’s Group Chief Executive Officer, Dr Aisha Achimugu Sulaiman, and relayed them to other individuals involved in the transactions.

Describing Oceangate as a “briefcase or shell company,” the EFCC alleged that it was created as a vehicle for holding petroleum assets acquired with funds reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

The commission argued that the acquisition of interests in PPL 302 and PPL 3007 followed a consistent pattern of using tainted funds to obtain oil assets.

The EFCC explained that Oceangate participated in the 2024 oil block licensing round for deep offshore PPL 302 and shallow water PPL 3007, and was notified of its winning bidder status by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) in a letter dated January 29, 2025.

It said the company’s total financial obligation to the Federal Government before licence issuance stood at $37.22 million.

According to the commission, the $13 million now in dispute was transferred in tranches into Oceangate’s Zenith Bank account by several companies, including Ashrab Energy and Oil Services Limited, Tripple A & Tee Oil Nigeria Limited, Code Crafter Tech Limited, Overcliffe Energy Solutions and Prism 24 Oil and Gas.

The EFCC claimed none of these entities were investors in Oceangate or had any legitimate contractual relationship with the company.

The anti-graft agency further alleged that the funds paid to Oceangate were originally monies disbursed by the Lagos State Government to contractors for public projects, and were later converted to dollars and channelled through intermediaries for the payment of signature bonuses for the oil licences.

The EFCC said its investigation uncovered alleged attempts to legitimise the transactions through pro forma invoices and purported debt financing letters, which it claimed were false.

It also said it recovered WhatsApp conversations allegedly showing how the documents were prepared.

In urging the court to order final forfeiture, the EFCC argued that the funds were transferred in a secretive manner designed to conceal their origin, and that unlicensed Bureau de Change operators and bank officials were allegedly involved in the movement of the money.

Oceangate, however, rejected the EFCC’s claims. In its affidavit to show cause, the company said the $13 million was paid between March 20 and April 3, 2025, as signature bonuses for the two oil licences, and urged the court to refuse the EFCC’s application for final forfeiture.

The company contended that the funds were derived partly from its legitimate earnings and partly from gifts to its Group Chief Executive Officer, Dr Achimugu.

It denied conspiring with unregistered Bureau de Change operators or bank officials, and maintained that Suleiman Chiroma, mentioned by the EFCC, was a licensed BDC operator lawfully engaged to source foreign exchange, as payment for the licences was required to be made in dollars.

Oceangate also denied any knowledge of Ashrab Energy and Oil Services Limited, Tripple A & Tee Oil Nigeria Limited, or the individuals named by the EFCC, insisting it had never met or transacted with them.

The company said all naira funds converted to dollars came from legitimate sources, attaching audited accounts in support of its claims.

In a separate motion, Oceangate asked the court to set aside the interim forfeiture order, arguing that it was made without jurisdiction and in violation of its right to fair hearing.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter to March 25 for ruling on whether the $13 million will be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government or released to Oceangate.