The bail plea submitted by three jailed promoters of Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX) in the alleged over $1 billion fraud has been postponed till June 30 for a decision by Federal High Court Justice Emeka Nwite in Abuja.
After Fadila Yusuf, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) counsel, and the defense attorneys followed their procedures and presented their arguments for and against the application, Justice Nwite set the date.
On April 24, Justice Nwite granted the EFCC permission to detain and arrest six CBEX operators for their role in the scam.
After Yusuf, the attorney for the EFCC, filed an ex parte request to that effect, stating that the detention would remain pending the conclusion of the investigation into the alleged offenses and potential prosecution, the judge issued the order.
Emmanuel Uko, Seyi Oloyede, Adefowora Oluwanisola, and Adefowora Abiodun Olanipekun are among the six accused.
As the first and sixth defendants, respectively, Avwerosuo Otorudo and Chukwuebuka Ehirim are also involved.
Four justifications were provided by the anti-graft agency in Yusuf’s motion ex-parte, which was submitted on April 23.
According to her, the EFCC is mandated by law to prevent financial crimes and identify them through investigation.
Yusuf said that “the defendants are at large and a warrant of arrest is required to arrest the defendants for proper investigation and prosecution of this case”.
The 1st defendant, Abiodun Avwerosuo Otorudo (5th defendant) and Chukwuebuka Ehirim (6th defendant) had been in the EFCC’s custody on investigation.
At the resumed hearing, Babatunde Busari, who appeared for Abiodun, and Justice Otorudo, who represented Otorudo and Ehirim, informed the court that they had filed bail applications on their clients’ behalf.
Otorudo equally told the court that he filed a bail application on behalf of the 5th and 6th defendants (Otorudo and Ehirim) dated May 8, but filed on May 9.
Busari said that, though they received the EFCC’s counter affidavit this morning, they were ready to proceed.
Busari said the bail application was brought pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36, 41, and 46 of the constitution (as amended) and Sections 159, 259, 296, and 298 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
He said the application sought an order granting Abiodun bail on liberal terms from the EFCC’s custody pending the preferment of a charge, if any, against him.
He said it also sought an interim order compelling the EFCC to produce him before the court for the court to grant him bail from the commission’s custody as guaranteed by relevant sections of the law.
Busari, while giving the grounds for the application, said the court on April 24 issued an arrest warrant and a remand order against Abiodun and other persons in respect of CBEX.
The lawyer, however, said that before April 24, Abiodun had, through his counsel, reached out to the EFCC on April 22 that he was ready to surrender himself for investigation, and that on April 28, he turned himself in for investigation.
He said Abiodun, who is suffering from a severe ailment, had been in the custody of the anti-graft agency without bail since April 28, more than the statutory prescribed 14 days.
He said the EFCC latched on to the facts that the order of the court did not prescribe a time and could detain Abiodun for as long as they wanted in breach of his right.
Besides, he argued that no charge had been filed against him for any infraction of the law in any competent court of law.
Busari said that, though the prosecution served them with a counter-affidavit earlier in the morning, he based his argument on two points of law.
The lawyer argued that in the entirety of the counter affidavit, no averment controverts Abiodun’s affidavit in support of the bail application, citing two previous cases to back his submission.
Again, he argued that though the totality of the EFCC’s counter affidavit was hinged on the argument that Abiodun might likely jump bail, he reminded that Abiodun voluntarily surrendered himself to the commission.
Besides, he argued that the country’s legal system recognises the presumption of a suspect as innocent until proven guilty and that the assumption that he might likely jump bail should not be a basis for bail denial.
He said his detention for about 40 days contradicted Sections 295 and 296 of ACJA, which stipulated 14 days for a remand order and another 14 days extension.
The lawyer urged the court to grant their prayers.
On his part, counsel to the 5th and 6th defendants, Otorudo, also argued in the same vein.
He said his application sought an order varying the earlier order granting the EFCC leave to arrest and detain his clients pending the conclusion of the investigation or possible arraignment/trial.
The lawyer argued on six grounds, stating that the 5th and 6th defendants voluntarily submitted themselves for investigation on April 25 and have remained in custody without bail since then.
He emphasized that the applicants are willing to cooperate with further investigations and attend court proceedings whenever required if granted bail.
Disputing the EFCC’s stance on the seriousness of the charges, the lawyer contended that the offences were bailable and urged the court to exercise its discretion in favor of his clients.
In response, Yusuf, representing the EFCC, strongly opposed the bail application. She filed a five-paragraph counter affidavit supported by three exhibits, asserting that the defendants are implicated in the alleged fraudulent acquisition of over \$1 billion—an amount exceeding the budgets of some Nigerian states.
Yusuf highlighted that the EFCC continues to receive petitions from victims of the alleged fraud. While acknowledging that bail is at the court’s discretion, she insisted it must be granted judiciously and with caution.
She also urged the court to dismiss the bail applications of the 5th and 6th defendants.