The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the $12 million money laundering charge arraignment of the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of SunTrust Bank Ltd, Halima Buba, along with the bank’s Chief Compliance Officer, Innocent Mbagwu, to June 4, 2025.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date on Tuesday after the legal team of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the defense took divergent legal positions regarding the service of a $12 million money laundering charge by the EFCC at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The EFCC charge involves allegations of a $12 million fraud leveled against the two top executives of the bank.
EFCC Charge
The EFCC is prosecuting Buba and Mbagwu for alleged conspiracy and for aiding cash payments to different persons involving millions of dollars beyond the prescribed threshold, without passing through a financial institution.
This, according to the EFCC, is contrary to Sections 21(a), 2(1), and 9(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and is punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.
The 6-count charge partly reads:
“That, HALIMA BUBA, the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of SunTrust Bank Ltd, and INNOCENT MBAGWU, the Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer of SunTrust Bank Ltd, on the 20th day of March 2025 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, conspired amongst yourselves to make a cash payment of the sum of Two Million United States Dollars ($2,000,000) to Sani S. Ali Fagge, an associate of Suleiman Muhammed Chiroma, without going through a financial institution and thereby committed an offence contrary to Sections 21(a), 2(1), 19(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.”
What Transpired in Court
- At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the matter was slated for arraignment, but the defendants were not in court as the prosecution had been unable to effect service of the charges on them.
- He added that the defense team was willing to receive the charge sheet on behalf of their clients.
“My lord, the prosecution has not been able to serve the defendants. Ironically, they are apparently aware of today’s proceedings as their legal representatives are in court. My learned brother silk friend informed me earlier that they are willing to receive the service on behalf of their clients,” he said.
- He stated that he did not oppose serving the charge on the defendants’ lawyers but added that Section 382(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) requires him to bring an application for “substituted service” by way of an ex parte application.
- Substituted service is a legal procedure that allows court documents to be delivered through alternative means when direct service fails.
- Responding, J.J. Usman, SAN, told the court that the EFCC lawyer ought to serve the defendants’ lawyers with the charge since the defense legal team was present in court.
“Our clients instructed us to appear in court because they read about the case on social media. They have not been served. We approached the learned silk for the prosecution and undertook to accept service on behalf of our clients. We asked him to serve us, but he refused. My lord has made several orders in similar matters allowing service through legal representatives,” he said.
- Iheanacho replied that the Commission did not want anything that would jeopardize the trial, insisting that he would prefer to bring an ex parte application for substituted service.
- Usman maintained that if the EFCC was seeking an adjournment, the court should order that the Commission should not arrest or harass the defendants on the basis of the subject matter in the charge, pending their arraignment in court.
- He expressed dissatisfaction with the EFCC counsel’s refusal to serve the defense team with the charge in open court, adding, “except the EFCC has a sinister motive.”
- He alleged that the prosecution might resort to arresting and parading the defendants in the media, contrary to relevant laws.
- Iheanacho responded that the fears of the defense team were “speculative,” highlighting that EFCC operatives have the constitutional backing to arrest a suspect on sight.
- Responding to the lawyers, Justice Nwite said he did not see anything strange in the request of the defendants’ lawyer that they should be served with the charge in court.
The judge asked the EFCC lawyer if the bank MD had once honored the Commission’s invitation for questioning, to which he responded in the affirmative.
Nwite held that the law states that if one cannot serve a defendant with the charge, such a person can be served through their lawyer.
In a short ruling, Nwite directed the prosecution to file and bring its application for substituted service on counsel to the defendants on or before Thursday, May 29, 2025.
Justice Nwite then adjourned the matter till June 4, 2025, for the arraignment of the defendants.
