The arraignment of two land speculators was on Monday stalled at the Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Jikwoyi/Azhata, Abuja, due to their absence in court.

The defendants ? Adama Andrew, Ifeanyi Christopher, and their company, Andreams Global Properties Limited ? are being prosecuted by the police on a 16-count charge bordering on conspiracy and obtaining money under false pretence, contrary to the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006.

Count One of the charge, marked CR/344/25, reads, ?That you, Adama Andrew, Ifeanyi Christopher and Andreams Global Properties Limited, sometime between October and December 2023, at Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with intent to defraud, did conspire amongst yourselves to commit a felony to wit: fraudulently obtaining the total sum of Fifty-Seven Million Naira (?57,000,000.00) from Anyisouth Global Nigeria Limited under the false pretence that you were selling to him three and a half hectares of land situate at Hilltop Extension 11, Kurudu, FCT, Abuja, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 8 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006.?

When the case was called, the prosecution counsel, Kalu Orji, informed the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Zubairu, that although the matter was slated for arraignment, none of the defendants was present in court.

?My Lord, the matter is slated for arraignment, but I can?t see the defendants. They have, however, been duly served with the charge,? Orji said.

Counsel to the 1st and 3rd defendants, Chuks Ebunu, told the court that his client was bereaved and unable to appear in court for the arraignment.

On his part, counsel to the 2nd defendant, Fidelis Akporia, explained that his client was only served with the court processes on Friday, after close of work, and needed time to properly hand over his duties before appearing in court.

He said, ?Actually, they had been calling him before Friday to come to the station, but didn?t disclose the reason. He is on bail, so there is nothing to hide. When he went to the station on Friday evening, he was served with the court processes. He had come from his workplace and didn?t expect to be served.

?He is an electrical engineer and must properly hand over at work before attending court. There has not been enough time to do that. However, he is very willing to attend the trial on the next adjourned date. Once a date is fixed, I can assure the court he will be present.?

The prosecution counsel, however, accepted the excuse provided by the 1st defendant?s counsel but disagreed with the justification offered for the 2nd defendant?s absence.

?I have heard the submission of the 1st and 3rd defendants? counsel. It is unfortunate it involves a bereavement; my only issue is that I should have been informed earlier. Regarding the second defendant, I seriously object to the excuse that there is no one for him to hand over to,? Orji stated.

Justice Zubairu accepted the first defendant?s explanation, noting that the time given for appearance was insufficient.

?You served him on Friday. I believe he needs more time. I will give you another date before vacation,? the judge ruled.

The lawyers, however, agreed to fix the arraignment for a date after the court?s vacation.

Consequently, the judge adjourned the matter to October 6 for arraignment. (PUNCH)

Update news