Connect with us

Judiciary

Oil Magnate, Akinduro Sues EFCC, Demands N5b For Unlawfully Declaring Him Wanted

Published

on

Dr. Henry Mobolaji Akinduro, Chairman/CEO of Global Signature Hotel and Total Grace Group Limited, has filed a N5 billion lawsuit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly declaring him wanted unlawfully.
In the suit filed on Wednesday at the Federal High Court, Lagos, Akinduro submitted that the EFCC declared him wanted without any form of judicial intervention, recourse to constitutional safeguards or order of court.
The EFCC on Friday, 11 October, 2024 at about 7.20pm on its official twitter handle, also known as ‘X’ declared the oil magnate ‘Wanted’. The businessman is praying the court to order the EFCC to remove his name from the wanted list published on the commission’s official website or any other related platform including Twitter (X).
Akinduro is seeking N5 billion as “general damages”.
On Monday 14 October, 2024, the businessman, via his counsel, Olalekan Ojo SAN had petitioned the Executive Chairman of the EFCC over the unconstitutional violation of his fundamental human rights to personal liberty and human dignity by the publication of his name on the list of wanted persons on the EFCC’s website.
Ojo averred in the petition that at all times preceding the said publication there was no order of any Court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the said publication and no charge had been preferred against our Client before any Court of law.
According to Akinduro’s Lawyer, the Commission had allegedly made the said illegal or unlawful publication declaring him wanted upon the prompting or instigation of one Mr. Femi Olushakin who had earlier written a petition against the oil magnate in respect of a N240 million contractual dispute between them —Messrs Olushakin and Akinduro.
He affirmed that disputes had arisen from the investment agreement entered into between the two men leading to Olushakin petitioning EFCC.
“Our Client (Akinduro) was invited by the Commission on 4th June, 2024 and he immediately responded via letter dated 5th June, 2024 notifying the Commission of his unavailability due to medical reasons. In the said letter, it was stated therein that our Client was out of the Country receiving medical attention. He subsequently provided assurances that he would be present at the Commission as soon as he was medically cleared to travel. It is pertinent at this juncture to chronicle the genesis of the subject matter which led to the declaration of our Client Wanted by the Commission,” Ojo stated.
The Counsel disclosed that there was a business transaction between Akinduro and Olushakin which was backed by a viable collateral which included Akinduro’s Global Signature Hotel worth N500 million, three (3) 60-Seater Yutong buses valued at over N240 million and a Toyota 4Runner SUV.
Ojo claimed that Olushakin has sold the three 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently drives around the city in the Toyota 4Runner SUV which were used as collateral by Akinduro.
“It is clear from the above that this is a purely civil business transaction with no element of criminality embedded in it. Mr. Femi Olushakin maliciously petitioned the Commission after selling the 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently using the Toyota 4runner SUV for his personal use,” he stated.
The Senior Lawyer added that despite Akinduro’s medical condition overseas, he has maintained close communication with the Commission.
“Our Client regularly sends his Legal Officer to the Commission, affirming his willingness and desire to appear before the Commission upon due confirmation of his being fit to travel by his doctors. There was no further request by the Commission inviting our Client before the unlawful publication.
“It is to be further noted that on 11 October, 2024, our Client’s Legal Officer was physically present at the office of the Commission around noon to submit a correspondence to the Commission and he also reassured the Operatives of the Commission of our Client’s desire and willingness to cooperate with the investigation by the Commission upon his arrival in Nigeria.
“It is regrettable that despite the repeated reassurances of our Client to cooperate with the investigation upon his arrival in Nigeria, the Commission proceeded to declare our Client ‘Wanted’ later that same day at about 7.20pm without an order of Court and in the absence of a valid charge in a Court of law.
“The Commission published our Client’s name and photograph depicting our Client as a fugitive from the law and branded him “WANTED” without any evidence of evading investigation. This action of the Commission has not only defamed our Client but also violated our Client’s right to freedom of movement without the order of the Courts.
“The Commission has also by the unlawful publication subjected our Client to public humiliation and ridicule thus causing our Client loss of personal and business relationships as well as reputational damage. It is our instruction that since the publication, our Client has been inundated with calls, Whatsapp messages from his business associates all over the world who had read the post expressing their disgust and dismay at the defamatory publication, and the said publication has also caused our Client emotional trauma and distress.”
Akinduro, through his lawyer, said he considered it imperatively necessary to put the records straight with a view to showing that the fraud allegations are trumped-up allegations aimed at causing incalculable damage to his hard earned but richly deserved reputation.
“It is pertinent to state that the petition against Dr. Henry Akinduro was an ignoble attempt to criminalize purely contractual disputes that had arisen from the investment agreement between Dr. Henry Akinduro and the Petitioner, Mr. Femi Olushakin,” he said.
Ojo stated that the commercial or contractual disputes had earlier been referred to the competent Court by the parties before Olushakin resorted to lodging the fraud allegations against the oil magnate for reasons best known to him.
“Indeed, with knowledge of this, Mr. Femi Olushakin through his
lawyers, as part of the originating processes filed towards the resolution of the dispute between the parties
in court, the Petitioner (the Defendant in the Civil Suit No I/87512024 at the State High Court, Ibadan Judicial Division, Oyo State of Nigeria) has filed a Counterclaim. Some of the reliefs set out in the Counter Claims are as follows:
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N250 million Naira only to the Counter Claimant, sum of which was invested by the Counter Claimant into the business of the Defendants to the Counter Claim (Dr. Henry Akinduro and co)
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N205,325,000 to the Counter Claimant being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimants by the Defendant to the Counter Claimants.
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N52.5 million to the Counter Claimant (Mr. Femi Olushakin) being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimant by the Defendants to the Counter Claim on the investment of N100 million only).
– An Order directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N10 million only) to the Counter Claimant being the shortfall or deficit.
“One would have expected that Olushakin would allow the Court to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties since the matter is already sub-judice. Our client has taken further legal actions towards establishing with compelling finality that the fraud allegations made against him are unfounded, groundless, baseless and ill-motivated. It is pertinent to stress that our client is presumed innocent by constitutional fiat until the contrary is proved or established. Our Client wishes to restate his confidence in the judicial process which he believes will vindicate him,” Akinduro’s lawyer submitted.

 

Judiciary

Oceangate Engineering to appeal court’s ruling on asset forfeiture

Published

on

By

Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited has announced plans to appeal a recent ruling of the Federal High Court ordering the forfeiture of certain assets.

The company’s Secretary, Nnenna Onyeaso, disclosed this in a statement on Thursday, maintaining that neither the firm nor its leadership was found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Onyeaso said the company views the ruling as a civil asset forfeiture order based on suspicion rather than proof, she emphasise  that the judgment did not establish any criminal liability against the organisation.

She added that the firm has instructed its legal team to file an appeal, expressing confidence in the judicial process and optimism that a comprehensive review of the case will yield a favourable outcome.

“To be clear, this ruling is a civil asset forfeiture order with no finding of wrongdoing against Oceangate or its leadership.

“The court’s decision rested on a legal standard of suspicion, not proof, and it is one we intend to pursue fully through the appeals process,” she said in a statement.

The firm secretary also said that Oceangate has reiterated its belief in the rule of law, noting that the appellate system exists to address such outcomes.

She added that the company remained confident that the facts of the case will ultimately affirm its integrity and business practices.

Onyeaso said that the firm also emphasised that its operations remained unaffected, stating that it continues to provide employment for many Nigerians while contributing to the country’s energy sector and broader economy.

“We have always believed in the ability of the judicial process, and that belief has not wavered,” she added.

She noted that Oceangate further expressed appreciation to its employees, partners, and clients for their continued support amid the development, assuring stakeholders of its commitment to transparency and accountability.

The Secretary said that the company reaffirmed its confidence in Nigeria as a viable destination for investment, describing the country as a land of equity, growth, and opportunity.

“We remain committed to the continued growth of our business and the communities we serve as we are optimistic that justice will prevail at the end of the legal process.

43 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

News

PDP Criticises Kwara Governor Over Deadly Bandit Attack

Published

on

PDP criticises Kwara Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq over deadly bandit attack in Woro and Nuku, calling response insufficient

(more…)

67 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

Judiciary

Court Asked To Restrain FG From Interfering with NAFDAC Enforcement of Sachet Alcohol Ban

Published

on

By

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to issue injunctive orders restraining the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) from further extending the moratorium on the prohibition of the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.

The Rights Group also asked for order restraining them from interfering with the statutory powers of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) to enforce the ban.

Specifically, SERAP is seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies, and all persons or authorities acting through them from extending any moratorium on the sachet alcohol ban.

The organisation is also asking the court for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from directing, preventing, blocking, or stopping NAFDAC from enforcing the prohibition, in line with its statutory functions under Sections 5 and 30(c) of the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, and the Memorandum of Resolution executed on 19 December 2018.

In the suit marked FHC/L/CS/2568/25, SERAP is asking the court to compel the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, through its supervisory authority, to immediately direct NAFDAC to fully enforce the existing nationwide ban on the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.

The defendants in the case are the Minister of Health and Social Welfare and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The group argues that the continued delay by the relevant federal authorities in enforcing the ban amounts to a failure to implement long-standing public health regulations designed to curb alcohol abuse, protect public safety, and safeguard citizens’ well-being.

The suit was filed on SERAP’s behalf by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, alongside a team of lawyers from Tayo Oyetibo LP.

In an originating summons dated 15 December 2025, SERAP contends that the ongoing circulation of sachet alcohol violates the National Health Act, 2014, the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, 2021, and the Memorandum of Resolution of 19 December 2018, which collectively mandate a nationwide ban on sachet alcohol.

SERAP is asking the court to determine whether the Minister of Health can lawfully refuse or fail to enforce the prohibition, and whether any federal authority has the power to interfere with or delay NAFDAC’s statutory duty to enforce the ban.

The organisation also wants the court to decide whether, given the acknowledged dangers of alcohol abuse, judicial intervention is required in the interest of public health, public safety, and public order.

According to SERAP, sachet alcohol, often cheap, highly potent, and widely accessible, has been linked to rising cases of alcohol abuse, particularly among young people and low-income communities. It argues that the 2018 Memorandum of Resolution and subsequent regulations were adopted precisely to address these risks.

Among the reliefs sought are declarations that the sachet alcohol ban is a valid regulation under the NAFDAC Act; that the Minister of Health has no legal authority to grant or extend any moratorium on its enforcement; and that it is unlawful for any federal authority to interfere with NAFDAC’s enforcement responsibilities.

SERAP is also asking the court to affirm that the defendants have a duty to ensure the full implementation of the ban nationwide.

The legal action follows recent unverified social media news suggesting there is an attempt to further postpone the long overdue enforcement of the ban championed by a few operstors bent on continued violation of the regulation, despite earlier regulatory directive and broad industry commitments. The issue has gained renewed attention after the Senate in full plenary session passed a unanimous resolution setting a December 2025 deadline for full enforcement of the ban, citing public health concerns.

SERAP insists that continued delays undermine Nigeria’s health laws and expose citizens to preventable harm, urging the relevant authorities to prioritise public interest over selfish profit objectives of a few non-compliant businessmen.

The court is expected to fix a hearing date once the defendants enter their appearance.

49 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

Trending News