A Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja has adjourned the trial of a Fidelity Bank staff member, Nweke Chukwuebuka, to allow the prosecution to provide key documents and video evidence requested by the defence.

Justice Ismail Ijelu granted the request after the defendant opened his defence, denying any role in the alleged unauthorised withdrawal of N1m from a customer’s account.

The case, filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), centres on allegations that Mr Nweke accessed a colleague’s workstation to facilitate the transaction.

He has pleaded not guilty.

What the case is about

According to court filings, the EFCC charged Mr Nweke under Charge No. ID/26820C/2025 for alleged unauthorised access with intent to commit fraud, contrary to Section 386(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.

Prosecutors allege that on 21st June 2025, he accessed a desktop assigned to another staff member, Emmanuella Anyanwu, leading to the withdrawal of N1m from a customer’s account.

Defendant denies wrongdoing

While giving evidence, Mr Nweke told the court that the workstation linked to the transaction was not restricted to one staff member.

“Multiple staff on night shift could use available systems depending on customer calls assigned to them,” he said.

He added that he experienced network issues on the day of the incident and was attempting to reconnect when the transaction occurred.

The defendant also said he later received a complaint call from the customer about the debit alert.

Claims of system failure and escalation

Mr Nweke told the court that his checks revealed the customer had previously lost her phone and requested a change of phone number linked to the account.

However, he claimed the bank’s system still reflected the old number.

“The system still reflected the old phone number, thereby allowing continued access to the account’s online banking platform,” he said.

He said he escalated the issue to his supervisor and helped prevent another attempted withdrawal of N500,000.

Allegations against investigators

The defendant also raised concerns about how the investigation was handled.

He alleged he was pressured to repay the disputed funds during internal probes and was later compelled to make statements without legal representation after the case was transferred to the EFCC.

“I was shocked when I was accused of involvement in the withdrawal,” he told the court.

He further claimed his family sold part of his mother’s land after investigators suggested repayment could secure his release.

Mr Nweke maintained that he did not benefit from the funds and had been falsely accused.

Court orders fresh evidence

Following the testimony, defence counsel Ejiofor asked the court to compel the EFCC and Fidelity Bank to produce conversation desktop records and CCTV footage.

He argued that the materials would clarify the circumstances of the investigation and support the defence.

Justice Ijelu granted the request and adjourned the case to 14 May for continuation of trial.

Why it matters

The case highlights growing concerns around internal banking controls, cybersecurity risks and employee accountability in Nigeria’s financial sector.

It also raises questions about investigative procedures and the rights of suspects during financial crime probes.

What’s next

The court is expected to review the requested evidence when proceedings resume.

The outcome could influence how financial institutions handle internal fraud cases and digital security protocols.

The Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Akeem Owoade, has been sued by princes of Oyo town, who are asking a State High Court to restrain the monarch from actions they say diminish the historic status of the throne.

The suit, filed at the Oyo State High Court sitting in Oyo town, compels the monarch to appear in person or through legal representation.

What the case is about

The claimants, Ladigbolu Adegboyega, Owoade Tesleem, Adeyemi Adesina and Adeyemi Adebayo, filed the case under Suit No: HOY/18/2026.

They are seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the Alaafin, “either by himself, servants, privies or any other person whatsoever,” from attending events they argue are “not befitting the status of a symbolic traditional head of the Yoruba race.”

The princes are also asking the court to bar the monarch from performing any traditional or official role that would make him “subservient or inferior to any Oba in Yorubaland.”

Why it matters

The Alaafin of Oyo is one of the most influential traditional stools in Nigeria, with authority and symbolism that extend beyond Oyo State.

Legal experts say any judicial interpretation of the Alaafin’s powers could reshape how traditional authority is exercised and perceived across Yorubaland.

Historical claims before the court

In their filings, the claimants asked the court to declare that:

“The office of the Alaafin of Oyo… is of great historical importance not only in Yorubaland but also in Nigeria, West Africa and beyond.”

They also sought a declaration that:

“The Alaafin of Oyo is the symbol of unity, togetherness and the pivotal holder of the cultural, customary and traditional heritage of the Yoruba people.”

Another relief requests the court to affirm that:

“The Alaafin of Oyo is the paramount ruler and appointing authority over all chieftaincies in Oyo Town as well as Oyo North and South.”

Legal position

According to the writ of summons, the Alaafin may enter an appearance personally or through legal practitioners.

The court document states that the appropriate forms must be submitted at the High Court registry or sent by registered post.

No response has yet been filed on behalf of the monarch.

What happens next

The court is expected to fix a date for the Alaafin’s appearance and determine whether the reliefs sought fall within judicial authority over traditional institutions.

The outcome could set a precedent for how Nigerian courts interpret the limits of royal conduct.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the sealing of a disputed waterfront property in Lekki, Lagos, following allegations of fraud, regulatory breaches and threats to public peace involving a high-value land deal worth more than ₦2.5bn by Mr Elvis Emecheta Eze at Lekki Peninsula Scheme, Lagos.

The case highlights growing risks in Nigeria’s high-end real estate market, where weak documentation, overlapping authority and alleged double sales continue to expose investors to huge losses.

The order followed an application by Mr Henry Ugonna Orabuchi, a Lagos-based businessman, who told the court that sealing the property was necessary to prevent a breakdown of law and order while investigations continue.

The court granted the ex parte application, directing that all activities on the property be suspended pending the determination of the suit.

How the dispute began

According to court filings, Mr Orabuchi said he was introduced to Mr Emecheta in 2022 as the owner of a waterfront property in Lekki.

He said he was informed that part of the land was waterlogged and required sand-filling, after which the reclaimed land would be sold at ₦800,000 per square metre.

Following negotiations, Mr Orabuchi said he agreed to purchase 3,000 square metres for ₦2.4bn.

He added that he later paid an additional ₦100m, at Mr Emecheta’s request, to “fast-track” the sand-filling and documentation process.

What the contract promised

Mr Orabuchi said the agreement was executed based on documents presented by Mr Emecheta, including a Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy covering the main property adjoining the waterfront.

“It was expressly represented that the Governor’s consent for my portion would be derived from the root of title of the main property,” he said.

He explained that access to the reclaimed land was to be created through the main property, making both parcels “physically, legally and commercially inseparable”.

Regulatory red flags

Under the agreement, Mr Emecheta reportedly undertook to complete the sand-filling and perfect all documentation within 17 months.

However, Mr Orabuchi said officials of the Lagos State Government later assessed the reclaimed land and recognised only 6,700 square metres as legally reclaimed.

He alleged that Mr Emecheta rejected the assessment and attempted to reclaim up to 10,000 square metres through federal channels.

During this period, Mr Orabuchi said agents acting for Mr Emecheta began marketing the waterfront land to third parties.

He alleged that portions of the property were assigned to Lord of Hosts Miracle Church and other businesses, despite his own title documents remaining unperfected.

Allegations of double dealing

Mr Orabuchi accused Mr Emecheta of deliberately stalling the title perfection process to avoid fulfilling contractual obligations.

He also alleged that several structures erected on the property lacked valid planning approvals.

According to him, this led the Lagos State Building Control Authority (LASBCA) to remove some structures during regulatory enforcement.

“These developments contradicted the representations made to me and raised serious concerns about the legality of the land,” Mr Orabuchi said.

Police involvement

Before going to court, Mr Orabuchi petitioned the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), accusing Mr Emecheta of obtaining money under false pretences, criminal breach of trust and cheating.

The IGP reportedly referred the matter to Zone 2 Police Command, Onikan, Lagos, for investigation.

Mr Orabuchi alleged that while the investigation was ongoing, Mr Emecheta petitioned the IGP Monitoring Unit in Abuja, contrary to police directives on duplication of cases.

Police authorities later instructed the Abuja unit to step aside, according to the claimant.

Why the court sealed the property

Mr Orabuchi told the court that he continued to face threats and harassment, prompting him to file a fundamental rights enforcement suit against officers attached to the Monitoring Unit in Abuja.

The court ruled that sealing the property was necessary to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and prevent a breach of public peace.

Enforcement agents subsequently sealed the property in line with the court order.

Public warning

Mr Orabuchi urged members of the public to disregard what he described as “misleading narratives” surrounding the dispute.

He also warned prospective investors to exercise caution in any dealings involving Mr Eme

The Federal High Court is expected to fix a date for the substantive hearing.

Investigations by the police are also ongoing.