The scheduled arraignment of Halima Buba, Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of SunTrust Bank Ltd, and Innocent Mbagwu, the bank’s Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer, was on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, stalled due to the absence of the defendants in court.
The case, brought before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, involves allegations of a $12 million fraud levelled against the two top executives by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC. The EFCC is prosecuting Buba and Mbagwu 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.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the matter was slated for arraignment, but the defendants were not in court as the prosecution had been unable to effect service of the charges on them.
“My lord, the prosecution has not been able to serve the defendants. Ironically, they are aware of today’s proceedings as their legal representatives are in court. My learned brother, silk friend, 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), 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,” he said.
He further requested an adjournment, stating, “Subject to the court’s convenience, we are seeking June 4 for arraignment.”
Responding, counsel to the defendants, J.J. 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.
He 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,” he said.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter till June 4, 202,,5 for arraignment. He also directed the prosecution to file and bring its application for substituted service on counsel to the defendants on or before Thursday, May 29, 2025.
