Hearing of a criminal case filed by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) against Victor Ukutt, Whoba Ugwunna Ogo (who is reportedly at large), and a new generation bank was adjourned Monday due to the prosecution failure to serve an amended charge on some of the defendants.
The case involves allegations of the unlawful conversion of approximately N32 billion belonging to Woobs Resources Limited.
At the hearing before Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa, the prosecutor E.T.C. Emezina appeared for the prosecution, Femi Falana (SAN) represented the 1st and 4th defendants, while Ayodele Akintunde (SAN), appeared for the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Emezina told the court that an amended charge had been filed and served on all parties. However, Falana countered her submission, stating that his clients had not received the amended charge. He requested additional time to respond and asked for a short adjournment.
Responding, the prosecutor indicated her willingness to abandon the amended charge and proceed with the previous one in order to expedite the trial.
Falana objected, arguing that only the AGF has the constitutional authority under Section 174 to amend or withdraw charges and that any such action must be taken with the AGF’s explicit consent.
Emezina maintained that she had the AGF’s authorization pursuant to Section 174(2) of the Constitution to amend or withdraw the charges.
Justice Lewis-Allagoa directed the prosecution to be patient and allow the defendants adequate time to respond to the amended charge.
The matter was adjourned until May 21 for the hearing of pending applications.
The Federal Government had earlier filed an eight-count charge against the defendants, accusing them of conspiracy, conversion, obtaining by false pretenses, forgery, fraud, and money laundering.
The prosecution alleges that the defendants conspired between 2011 and 2023 to fraudulently convert approximately N32 billion from Woobs Resources Limited’s account domiciled at Fidelity Bank Plc.
According to the government, the alleged acts contravene several provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).
In response, the defendants filed preliminary objections under Section 305(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and Sections 6(a), (b) and 295 of the Constitution, seeking to dismiss the charges on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process.
They also requested a stay of proceedings pending the resolution of a share ownership dispute involving Woobs Resources Limited, which is currently before the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/L/343/2020.
The defendants contend that the criminal charges arise from a corporate dispute over ownership of shares in Woobs Resources Limited, stemming from a Joint Venture Agreement involving the 4th defendant and the nominal complainant, Mr. James Onyemenam.
