N5b alleged fraud: Lagos court discharges, acquits Adenuga

By : Yetunde Ayobami Ojo

Date: 1 December 2025 9:47pm WAT

Share :

Gavel

Gavel

JUSTICE Sedoten Ogunsanya of Lagos High Court has discharged and acquitted former accountant of Chevron Oil Company, Michael Adenuga, of N5 billion fraud and forgery allegations. The judge discharged and acquitted him of the three-count charge of fraud brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Delivering judgment in one of the longest criminal cases marked, ID/494C/14, Justice Ogunsanya held that the prosecution did not prove the allegations of stealing, conversion and forgery brought against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Adenuga was arraigned on May 15, 2014, alongside his company, Covenant Apartments Complex Limited, on a three-count charge bordering on fraudulent conversion of land, forgery of documents and use of false documents.

The defendants were alleged to have committed the offence between September 2011 and February 2014, at Aiyetoro, Ikota area of Lagos State. They were accused of converting landed property measuring about 22.687 hectares and valued at N5billion for personal use after it had been purchased in partnership with Sunday Oyeniran and Joseph Oyeniran in another company’s name.

The commission alleged that the defendants’ alleged offences contravened Sections 278 (1) and 285 (b) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria 2011.

But Adenuga and his company pleaded not guilty to the charge, marking the commencement of the trial on June 15, 2014.

During the trial, the prosecution counsel, Babatunde Sonoiki, called eight witnesses, including Sunday Oyeniran, while the defendants, led-in-evidence by their counsel, Mr Ehis Agboga, called four witnesses to defend the suit.

Justice Ogunsanya, however, held that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the alleged offences against the defendants.

The court stated that there was no contention that the first defendant was the alter ego of the second defendant, but that the prosecution failed to establish that the document was forged.

“The prosecution’s conclusion was based on assumption or speculation, which has no basis in law. The court has considered all the exhibits before it and the evidence of the witnesses. The first, second and third prosecution witnesses have an interest in the land, the subject matter.

“The prosecution has no adequate documentation to prove that the disputed land was owned by any individual other than the defendants. The prosecution failed to establish that the disputed document was made with fraudulent intent. The responsibility of the prosecution is to prove that the property is not that of another person.

“The prosecution is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to this court all the charges against the defendants. The court finds the defendants not guilty and hereby discharges and acquits them.”

Tags: