The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 4 for the arraignment of Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SunTrust Bank Ltd, Halima Buba, over alleged money laundering of 12 million U.S dollars.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), will arraign her alongside the bank’s Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer, Innocent Mbagwu, before Justice Emeka Nwite.
Though the defendants were scheduled to take their plea on Tuesday, the planned arraignment could not proceed due to the absence of the duo in court.
The EFCC is prosecuting the two top bank’s executives for alleged conspiracy and aiding cash payments to different persons involving millions of dollars beyond the prescribed threshold without passing through a financial institution contrary to Section 21(a), 2(1), and 9(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.
When the matter was called, prosecutor Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the matter was slated for arraignment, but the defendants were not in court.
He said the anti-graft agency had not served the charges on the defendants, adding that
“Ironically, they are apparently aware of today’s proceedings as their legal representatives are in court.
“My learned brother silk informed me earlier that they are willing to receive the service on behalf of their clients.
“We do not oppose this but we wish to comply with Section 382(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 which requires us to bring an application for substituted service by way of an ex parte application.
“This can be taken before the next adjourned date, and both parties have agreed that the arraignment can be rescheduled for June 4, 2025,” Iheanacho said.
The lawyer therefore sought an adjournment, subject to the court’s convenience to June 4 for arraignment.
Responding, counsel to the defendants, Johnson Usman, SAN, told the court that his clients were not properly served and only learned of the arraignment via social media.
“Our clients instructed us to appear in court because they read about the case on social media.
“They have not been served. We approached the learned silk for the prosecution and undertook to accept service on behalf of our clients.
“We asked him to serve us, but he refused.
“My lord has made several orders in similar matters allowing service through legal representatives.
“We are here and are pleading with the court to direct that service be effected on us.
“We are ready to appear with our clients on the next adjourned date,” he said.
Usman expressed concern that if the court did not direct service on counsel, the prosecution might resort to arresting and parading the defendants in the media.
In his rebuttal, Iheanacho argued that such fears were speculative.
“My lord, the court cannot make that order now until a formal application is brought.
“The fear expressed by the defence is speculative. The court does not dwell on speculation.
“We do not want to create a landmine where the issue of service could later become a basis to challenge the jurisdiction of this honourable court.
“It is better to make haste slowly, as over-speeding kills. Until the court grants substituted service, the prosecution reserves the right to arrest the defendants if found,” the EFCC’s lawyer said.
Justice Nwite subsequently adjourned the matter until June 4 after taking the arguments of the parties.
The judge equally directed the prosecution to file and bring its application for substituted service on counsel to the defendants on or before May 29
