JUSTICE Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos State, has fixed June 9, this year, to rule on the bail application of relationship therapist, Blessing Nkiruka Okoro, popularly known as Blessing CEO, standing trial over an alleged N36million property fraud.
Counsel to the defendant, P.I. Nwafuru, informed the court that the bail application, dated May 15, was supported by a six-paragraph affidavit and five exhibits, urging the court to exercise its discretion and grant the defendant bail on liberal terms.
However, Counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Suleiman Suleiman, opposed the application, saying the Commission had filed a 28-paragraph counter-affidavit, dated May 29, deposed to by its investigating officer, Bufa Regina Okangbe.
According to Suleiman: “We rely on all the depositions contained therein and the exhibits attached.
“At some point during the course of the investigation, the defendant stopped honouring invitations extended to her by the Commission.
“We urge Your Lordship not to accede to the request of the defence and instead order an accelerated hearing of the matter.”
After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Dipeolu reserved ruling on the bail application until June 9.
The prosecution had earlier called its first witness, Okangbe, who narrated how a trail of bank transactions, property records and witness statements allegedly revealed that the defendant received N36 million from the petitioner for a property she did not own.
EFCC, Okangbe said, received a petition that was assigned to her team for investigation and a Bank Verification Number (BVN) search conducted on the defendant revealed several bank accounts linked to her.
He stated: “Following this, letters of investigation were sent to the banks, while another letter was forwarded to the Lagos State Land Bureau to determine whether the property belonged to the defendant.
“The Commission also wrote to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) regarding the defendant’s company, Break or Makeup Limited.
“After analysing the defendant’s statements of account, she was invited to the Commission’s office and confronted with transactions traced to her and the petitioner.”
The witness further told the court that the defendant made statements under caution in the presence of her lawyer and husband, admitting that the petitioner paid her N30million, adding that the response from the Lagos State Land Bureau revealled that the property in question did not belong to the defendant, but to one Tunbosun Osobu.
She said the Commission subsequently invited Osobu, who appeared with his lawyer and son, and confirmed that he had leased the property to the defendant for three years and that the lease expired in 2023 before it was renewed in 2025.
She also told the court that the petitioner submitted the lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the defendant, alongside a tenancy acquisition form.
During the proceedings, the prosecution sought to tender several documents through the witness, including the petition, dated February 18, last year; statements allegedly made by the defendant on December 10, 11, 12, and 16, last year; the tenancy acquisition form; petitioner’s Zenith Bank statement of account in the name of Pipes and Barrel Limited; and defendant’s GTBank and Access Bank statements.
However, the defence Counsel objected to the admissibility of the defendant’s statements, arguing that there was no endorsement showing the presence of a legal practitioner during the recording process, and no video recording of the statement-taking had been produced before the court.
In his response, Suleiman argued that the absence of a legal practitioner did not automatically render an extra-judicial statement inadmissible, noting: “The law only requires the presence of a legal practitioner or any person chosen by the defendant.
“The statements are very key to this matter, and we urge My Lord to admit them in evidence.”
On the bank statements, Suleiman maintained that all statements tendered were accompanied by certificates of identification, in compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, adding: “The witness, through whom the statements of account are being tendered, is the investigating officer in this case, and the law recognises such authority as an exception to the hearsay rule.”
Justice Dipeolu overruled the objections and admitted the documents in evidence, holding that: “Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) clearly provides that a suspect’s statement may be taken in the presence of a legal practitioner of his or her choice, a representative of the Legal Aid Council, a representative of a civil society organisation or any other person chosen by the suspect.”
Continuing her testimony, Okangbe said the petitioner, through the company’s account, paid a total of N36million to the defendant, while N25million was transferred into the defendant’s GTBank account, and an additional N11million paid into her Access Bank account for the lease of a property, located at No. 1B, Tunbosun Osobu Street, Lekki, Lagos.
She further told the court that an analysis of the defendant’s bank accounts showed subsequent transfers, including N8million to Mr and Mrs. Osobu; N1.9million to Beauty City by Lekki; N11million to Lina Uzoma Okoro, the defendant’s mother; and N15million to Kenneth Emeka Onuora.
Under cross-examination, the witness stated that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, being the complainant in the criminal proceedings, was not privy to any settlement arrangement allegedly entered into between the defendant and the petitioner, insisting she was unaware of any attempt by the defendant to refund N24million to the petitioner, as claimed by the defence.
Okangbe stated that the petitioner had already commenced renovation work on the property before its owner, Tunbosun Osobu, allegedly appeared and ejected them from the premises.
Justice Dipeolu subsequently adjourned the matter until June 22, this year, for the continuation of the trial.
Published:
Related articles
Recent articles
