Justice Nicholas Oweibo of a Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos, has given an order that a reproduction warrant be issued for Azeez Fashola, a.k.a. Naira Marley to enable him to attend the trial in the alleged case of fraud instituted against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC).

The judge arrived at the decision consequent upon the submission of counsel to the artiste, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, when the case was mentioned and the defendant was discovered not to be in court.

The SAN particularly told Justice Oweibo that Naira Marley was unavoidably absent on the reason that he was detained after he voluntarily surrendered himself to the police for interrogation in connection with the death of another musician, Ifeoluwa Aloba a.k.a. MohBad.

Consequently, Ojo prayed the court to issue a reproduction warrant for the defendant to be produced in court on the next adjourned date.

On her part, the lawyer to the anti-graft agency, Bilikisu Buhari confirmed that Naira Marley is in Police custody and did not oppose the request made by the defence lawyer.

In adjourning the trial until October 30, 2023, Justice Oweibo ordered that a reproduction warrant should be issued for Naira Marley to be produced in court if he is still in police custody by then.

It would be recalled that Naira Marley is standing trial on cybercrime-related offences.

Specifically in the charge filed by the anti-graft agency, Naira Marley and Raze (still at large), were alleged to have on or about December 11, 2018, conspired among themselves to use Access card 42658840359191132 issued to individuals apart from him in a bid to obtain gain and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 27(1)(b) of the Cyber Crimes (Prohibition, Prevention Cyber Crimes (Prohibition, etc) Act 2015 and punishable under Section 33(2) of the same Act.

The Commission also alleged that Naira Marley, and Raze (still at large), on or about May 10, 2019, with intent to defraud possessed counterfeit card 4921819410257431 issued to one Timea Fedorne Tatar and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 33(9) of Cyber Crimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Act. (New Telegraph)

Update news