The Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Gwarimpa, Abuja, has fixed Thursday, December 18, to deliver its ruling on the bail application filed by a former Minister of Labour and Employment, Chris Ngige, over an eight-count ₦2.2 billion contract fraud charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The trial judge, Justice Maryam Hassan, fixed the date after counsel to the EFCC, Sylvanus Tahir, SAN, and counsel to the defendant, Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, argued for and against the bail application.

When the matter was called for a hearing on Monday, Tahir recalled that the proceedings were adjourned from Friday to Monday for the hearing of arguments on the bail application.

He added that the court had adjourned to enable the prosecution, which was served with the motion for bail on Friday morning, to study the application and file a response.

He, however, informed the court that a response had since been filed.

“The prosecution filed a counter-affidavit to the bail application today, December 15,” he said.

Responding, the lead defence counsel, Ikwueto, rose to argue the bail application on behalf of his client.

In his submissions, he urged the court to grant the application, stressing that the former minister does not pose a flight risk, contrary to the prosecution’s claim.

“The application was filed on December 11, 2025. It is seeking, my Lord, medical relief, which is bail. We rely on your Lordship to consider the application. My Lord, we have a further affidavit of seven paragraphs,” he said.

Addressing the prosecution’s counter-affidavit, Ikwueto said: “My Lord, I can see that the prosecution has filed a counter-affidavit. I ask your Lordship for a little time to address paragraphs eight and nine of the counter-affidavit.

“Paragraphs eight and nine state that the defendant poses a flight risk and that no amount of sureties can prevent him from fleeing abroad and abandoning his trial.”

He argued that although the prosecution alleged that the defendant breached the administrative bail earlier granted to him for a medical trip abroad by failing to return his international passport upon his return, there was documentary evidence showing that the defendant lost his passport in London during the trip.

According to him, reports were made to the UK Home Office, the Nigerian High Commission in London, and authorities in Abuja regarding the loss of the passport.

He added that nowhere in the counter-affidavit did the EFCC state that it investigated the alleged loss of the passport and found the claim to be false.

He further argued that, when placed side by side, documentary evidence carries more weight than a sworn affidavit.

“Your Lordship knows that in our law, documents command a higher degree of acceptance than oral testimony in a sworn affidavit. Documents bear more authenticity than words from the vocal cords of man,” he said.

Ikwueto also described it as contradictory for the prosecution to claim that the defendant could flee when he did not possess an international passport.

“In this case, the issue is whether the defendant can flee. How? The defendant must have travel documents, and it is presently confirmed that he does not. I therefore urge your Lordship to be persuaded by the documents before you showing that the defendant lost his international passport and reported the loss to the High Commission in London.

“If the prosecution says the defendant is a flight risk and can leave the country at will while in possession of his travel documents, I submit that this statement, even though contained in an affidavit, is false.

“If this affidavit says the defendant has his international passport, and there is a report at the High Commission in London that he lost it, how will he pose a flight risk? How will he travel? There is no record that he has obtained a new passport from the Immigration Service,” he argued.

He further contended that if the defendant was a flight risk, he would not have returned to the country after being granted administrative bail.

“The defendant is not a flight risk and has no capacity to leave this country now, despite being a former governor. If he were a flight risk, when he was given his passport in September, he would not have returned.

“He had to obtain an emergency travel certificate from the Nigerian High Commission in London to return. Your Lordship knows that this certificate is a one-off document. It cannot be used to travel out of Nigeria; it is only for entry and expires after use. There is no denial that this was how the defendant returned, and the certificate was stamped,” he said.

Ikwueto also argued that the defendant is not a criminal and has no prior criminal record aside from the case before the court.

“It is impossible for the defendant to commit the offence again. He is no longer a minister and may not be one in the near future. There is no likelihood that he will commit the offence again if granted bail.

“The defendant has held many positions in this country. He is being charged in respect of his last position, but apart from this charge, he has no criminal record,” he said.

He further pleaded with the court to consider that the defendant had been unable to access required medical care due to the loss of his passport, which forced him to return to Nigeria instead of travelling onward to the United States.

“He has to attend to his deteriorating health conditions, especially his sight. Yesterday, when I was with him, every other minute, he had to excuse himself to administer eye drops. Your Lordship may also take into account his age and health condition. The defendant needs to be in good health to stand this trial,” he said.

“We urge your Lordship to exercise your discretion. Your Lordship may impose whatever terms you deem fit. The defendant is not charged with a capital offence or an offence that is not bailable. We urge your Lordship to grant bail on favourable terms,” he added.

Opposing the application, the EFCC urged the court to refuse bail, arguing that the former minister had already breached the conditions of an earlier administrative bail.

“My Lord, in stiff opposition to the bail application, the prosecution filed a counter-affidavit and a written address in opposition to the defendant’s written address.

“We urge this honourable court to refuse the application,” Tahir said.

He noted that although the defendant undertook to return his passport by November 19, he failed to do so.

“From the travel pass, the defendant returned on November 14, but the document was never forwarded to the EFCC. We only saw it here. He did not present himself to the EFCC to report his return, nor did he return his travel document as undertaken,” Tahir said.

He argued that although the defendant claimed to have lost his passport in London, he returned to Nigeria to swear an affidavit of loss instead of doing so in the United Kingdom.

“The right thing would have been to depose to an affidavit of loss in the UK, not present one from a court in Maitama. The defendant is in gross breach of the administrative bail conditions,” he said.

Tahir further argued that the bail application was an attempt by the defendant to continue to enjoy the administrative bail earlier granted by the EFCC, which he had already forfeited.

He cited Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, arguing that bail may be refused where a defendant undermines the objectives of the criminal justice system.

“If the defendant claims to have lost his passport on November 10 in the UK, returned on November 14, and then stayed away until authorities came for him, has he not undermined the bail system?” he queried.

He added that the defendant failed to voluntarily report to the EFCC upon his return.

“He did not come to explain, ‘This is what happened.’ No exhibits were attached, and he did not submit himself to the EFCC. We urge the court to refuse the bail application and grant an accelerated hearing of the trial,” he said.

Responding, defence counsel argued that a lost foreign passport should be reported to the police, while the EFCC counsel agreed but noted that the local police referred to the jurisdiction where the loss occurred, London, not Nigeria. (PUNCH)

Update news