Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja has deferred ruling on the bail applications filed by three detained individuals alleged to be key figures behind Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX) until June 30.
The accused are facing allegations involving fraudulent activities amounting to over one billion dollars.
The postponement followed after lawyers representing both the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the defence presented and argued their respective legal positions. The judge had earlier granted the EFCC permission on April 24 to apprehend and hold six individuals linked to CBEX amid ongoing investigations into the alleged fraudulent scheme.
The individuals named in the EFCC’s request include Adefowora Abiodun Olanipekun, Adefowora Oluwanisola, Emmanuel Uko, Seyi Oloyede, Avwerosuo Otorudo, and Chukwuebuka Ehirim, identified respectively as the first to sixth defendants.
The anti-graft agency, through its counsel, Fadila Yusuf, submitted an ex parte motion dated and filed on April 23, which provided four key justifications for the application. Among these was the EFCC’s assertion of its statutory responsibility to investigate and prevent financial crimes, and that arrest warrants were necessary as the individuals were at large.
At the time of filing, the EFCC had already taken Abiodun, Otorudo, and Ehirim into custody as part of its investigations. During the latest court session, Babatunde Busari, appearing on behalf of Abiodun, and Justice Otorudo, representing both Otorudo and Ehirim, informed the court that they had filed applications requesting bail for their clients. Otorudo told the court that his bail application on behalf of the fifth and sixth defendants was dated May 8 and submitted the following day.
Busari noted that although the EFCC’s counter affidavit was received earlier that morning, they were prepared to proceed with their argument. He said the bail application was made under Sections 34, 35, 36, 41, and 46 of the amended Constitution, along with Sections 159, 259, 296, and 298 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
According to him, the motion requested that the court grant Abiodun bail on lenient conditions pending any formal charge. Additionally, it sought an interim directive compelling the EFCC to present him before the court so that he could be released from detention as guaranteed by applicable laws.
He explained that the court had issued an arrest warrant and remand order for Abiodun and others on April 24, but prior to that, Abiodun had already taken steps through his legal counsel to inform the EFCC on April 22 of his willingness to appear for investigation.
On April 28, he turned himself in. Busari emphasized that Abiodun had been in EFCC custody since then, surpassing the legal timeframe of 14 days stipulated for detention without bail. He argued that the EFCC exploited the fact that the court’s remand order lacked a time limit, enabling them to hold Abiodun indefinitely, which constitutes a breach of his constitutional rights.
He also pointed out that no formal charges had been filed against Abiodun before any competent court. Although the EFCC had submitted a counter affidavit that morning, Busari argued that it did not dispute the core points presented in Abiodun’s affidavit supporting the bail request.
He based this argument on established legal precedents and further contended that the EFCC’s position—that Abiodun might abscond if released—was unfounded since he had voluntarily appeared before the commission.
Busari further reminded the court that the principle of presumption of innocence remains a fundamental element of Nigeria’s legal system. He contended that assuming the likelihood of the defendant fleeing should not be a valid reason to deny bail.
He stated that his client’s prolonged detention contradicted the provisions of Sections 295 and 296 of the ACJA, which permit a 14-day remand period and one extension of the same duration.
Otorudo, representing the fifth and sixth defendants, adopted similar arguments. His application sought to modify the court’s earlier order that allowed the EFCC to detain his clients without charges pending investigation or possible prosecution.
He laid out six grounds in support of his request, including the fact that both defendants turned themselves in on April 25 and have remained in custody without bail. He told the court that if bail were granted, his clients were committed to cooperating with any further investigations and would be available for court proceedings as required.
He disagreed with the EFCC’s position that the gravity of the alleged crime should influence the bail decision. According to him, the charges under consideration are subject to bail under the law. He urged the court to exercise its discretion in their favor.
In response, EFCC counsel Fadila Yusuf strongly opposed the applications. She informed the court that a five-paragraph counter affidavit and three accompanying exhibits had been filed to respond to Abiodun’s request for bail.
Yusuf highlighted that Abiodun was seeking bail before any charge had even been filed against him. She also urged the court not to entertain the bail applications of the fifth and sixth defendants.
Yusuf argued that all defendants are involved in a case concerning the alleged misappropriation of funds exceeding one billion dollars, an amount that she said surpasses the annual budget of certain Nigerian states.
She mentioned that new complaints from victims of the fraud were still being received by the EFCC. She stressed that while bail is within the court’s discretion, it must be granted judiciously and within legal boundaries.
After hearing all arguments, Justice Nwite announced that a ruling on the bail applications would be delivered on June 30.
What you should know
Three CBEX promoters remain in EFCC custody over an alleged $1 billion fraud. Their lawyers argue prolonged detention breaches constitutional rights, while the EFCC maintains the scale of the alleged crime justifies continued custody. The court is set to rule on their bail applications on June 30.
