A Lagos State Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja has officially cleared the way for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to bypass conventional delivery bottlenecks in its ongoing ₦4.29 billion foreign exchange fraud case . The court granted an order allowing the anti-graft agency to serve critical judicial processes on United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc and its co-defendants using substituted means. This development ensures that the high-profile legal proceedings can move forward despite initial difficulties in physically reaching all parties involved.
The intervention became necessary after the accused individuals and corporate entities repeatedly failed to appear physically in court for their scheduled arraignment. Presiding judge Justice Rahman Oshodi issued the directive following an application by the prosecution, noting that alternative delivery—such as pasting the notices conspicuously at known corporate and residential addresses—will be legally recognized under local criminal justice laws. Official updates tracking the decision confirm that the formal order was handed down on 12 October 2026 .
With the substituted service now authorized, Justice Oshodi has rescheduled the formal arraignment for 22 October 2026 . To ensure absolute legal compliance before the next hearing, the court instructed the EFCC’s legal team to file verification affidavits proving that the court documents were pasted or delivered strictly in line with the approved guidelines. This deadline sets a firm timeline for the anti-graft agency to clean up its administrative framework and prepare the docket for a full trial entry.
The ruling successfully breaks a cycle of previous procedural delays that had kept the defendants from entering their pleas and stalled the development of the trial. At the heart of the EFCC’s criminal suit are serious allegations of money laundering , illegal retention of illicit wealth, and intentional concealment of criminal proceeds. Alongside UBA Plc, the charges target individual defendants Muyiwa Akinyemi and Amangbo Eziashi-Stephen , as well as two independent corporate entities, Geeos Global Service Limited and Fedat Global Limited .
The allegations remain unproven , as none of the defendants have been convicted in this matter. Under Nigerian law, all accused parties are presumed innocent until the court carefully reviews the evidence and determines the validity of the charges through a full judicial process.
The court’s decision to authorize alternative delivery resolves a critical procedural hurdle that had stalled the planned arraignment. EFCC prosecuting counsel Temitope Banjo moved for substituted service after the defendants failed to show up in court, requesting permission to physically paste the charge sheets and accompanying legal documents at properties tied to the accused.
Justice Rahman Oshodi granted the request, explicitly authorizing the anti-graft agency to paste the processes at 19 Nnebue House, 57 Marina, Festac Island, Lagos , or any other address verified by the commission. Justice Oshodi noted that this method offers a reasonable assurance that the defendants will be made aware of the criminal proceedings against them.
However, the judge turned down a separate prayer by the EFCC to serve the defense lawyers directly, labeling that specific request as ambiguous. He clarified that any service carried out strictly under Section 88 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State will be legally recognized as valid. The EFCC must complete this physical deployment and submit proof via affidavits before the next court date.
The anti-graft agency has filed a four-count criminal charge against UBA, two of its executives, and two independent companies. The prosecution’s case centers on foreign exchange transactions executed between September 2022 and March 2023 , involving funds the EFCC claims are proceeds of unlawful activity.
A major element of the charge accuses the defendants of conspiring to sell foreign currency at rates far higher than those officially mandated by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) . The specific count states:
“That you, United Bank for Africa Plc, Muyiwa Akinyemi, Amangbo Eziashi Stephen, Geeos Global Service Limited and Fedat Global Limited, between 14th September, 2022 through 20th March, 2023 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, conspired to sell Forex above the rates stipulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria and thereby committed an offence.”
Additionally, the EFCC alleges that the defendants actively hid ₦4,290,112,796.72 inside a UBA corporate account. The count reads:
“That you, United Bank for Africa Plc, Muyiwa Akinyemi, Amangbo Eziashi Stephen, Geeos Global Service Limited and Fedat Global Limited, sometime in September 2022, at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, concealed the aggregate sum of N4,290,112,796.72 (Four Billion, Two Hundred and Ninety Million, One Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety-Six Naira, Seventy-Two Kobo) in your United Bank for Africa Account No. NGN09991931102 derived directly from your illegal act.”
Note: These statements represent the prosecution’s formal claims. The inclusion of these counts in a charge sheet does not constitute proof of guilt, and the court will independently weigh the evidence while granting the defense a full opportunity to respond.
This legal battle encountered logistical friction long before the latest court order. During a previous hearing on 3 June 2026 , the scheduled arraignment collapsed entirely when the defendants did not appear. At that time, EFCC prosecutor Banjo insisted that the bank and its officials had already been served, noting that the agency had filed matching affidavits of service. He further alleged that the commission had actively tried to track down and arrest Akinyemi and Stephen after they supposedly violated the conditions of their EFCC administrative bail.
Defense counsel Adewale Kamourudeen, representing UBA and the two bank officials at that June hearing, strongly disputed the prosecution’s claims. He stated to the court:
“The first, second and third defendants have not been served with the information or the hearing notice for today’s proceedings or the previous adjourned date. We got wind of it through newspaper reports. That is why we are here.”
Kamourudeen argued that he needed to inspect the official court files to verify the proof of service the EFCC claimed to possess. In response, Banjo argued that UBA’s compliance officer, Chima Okugbo—who acted as the bank’s representative during investigations—had personally accepted the legal documents on behalf of both the institution and its individual officials. When Justice Oshodi asked Kamourudeen if he would simply accept the papers in the courtroom to move things along, the defense attorney declined, citing a lack of instructions from his clients.
The latest ruling effectively bypasses this back-and-forth by creating a court-sanctioned alternative, making the EFCC’s compliance with the pasting order the primary focus of the upcoming hearing.
The allegations involving over ₦4.29 billion in foreign exchange transactions shine a spotlight on regulatory compliance, internal financial controls, and the efficacy of anti-money laundering frameworks. Foreign exchange rules are critical to the broader economy, dictating how businesses, educational seekers, and international travelers access foreign currency for legitimate trade.
As primary intermediaries, commercial banks bear the legal responsibility of processing these transactions and maintaining accurate records to flag suspicious activity for regulators. If the prosecution successfully proves its claims, this trial could set a major precedent for corporate accountability and the enforcement of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) forex policies. However, the sheer size of the sum or the prominence of UBA does not equal guilt; the court is legally bound to establish explicit individual and corporate liability based strictly on evidence.
Core Elements the Court Must Establish
As the litigation moves past administrative service disputes, the prosecution and the judiciary must address the structural substance of the criminal charges:
- The Forex Infractions: The EFCC must clearly identify the specific transactions executed, the exact exchange rates applied, and the precise CBN guidelines that were allegedly breached at that time.
- The Paper Trail: Investigators must provide an undeniable roadmap showing the origin, movement, and ultimate destination of the ₦4.29 billion using audited bank statements, official correspondence, and digital transaction logs.
- Individual vs. Corporate Roles: The court must isolate the specific actions of UBA as an institution versus the conduct of the individual executives and independent companies. Merely proving that funds flowed through a UBA account is not enough to automatically establish criminal intent or liability.
Note: A complete understanding of this legal battle requires a formal response from UBA. Any official statement or defense arguments presented by the bank must be accurately tracked and reported alongside the prosecution’s narrative.
While the trial carries significant reputational weight, its direct impact on everyday operations should not be exaggerated:
- For Banking Customers: The case raises valid questions about compliance safeguards, but it does not mean customer deposits are in jeopardy or that everyday banking operations are disrupted.
- For Regulatory Bodies: The proceedings serve as a real-world test of whether Nigeria’s financial enforcement mechanisms can swiftly and effectively prosecute complex white-collar crimes.
- For the Banking Industry: A transparent, fair trial reinforces the necessity of strict compliance frameworks. Conversely, a dragged-out, highly delayed trial risks weakening public confidence in the speed of the justice system.
Justice requires preserving the defendants’ reputations until a verdict is reached. Accusations must never be treated as pre-established facts, just as blanket denials cannot block the court from analyzing credible evidence.
The Lagos State Special Offences Court has locked in 22 October 2026 for the formal arraignment. Before the gavel falls, the EFCC must complete the court-ordered substituted service and officially file its compliance affidavits.
The upcoming session will determine if the alternative document delivery met legal standards. If cleared, the defendants will finally have the opportunity to formally enter their pleas. As the case is still in its preliminary phase, the ultimate test remains whether the prosecution can field bulletproof, admissible evidence to back up its four-count charge in a swift and fair trial.
www.thenigerianvoice.com