Alleged N2.2bn NEDC fraud trial stalled again
The trial of the National Coordinator of the Multi-Sectoral Crisis Recovery Project (MCRP) of the North East Development Commission (NEDC), Danjuma Mohammed, was again stalled on Thursday, June 25, 2026, following his absence before Justice K. N. Ogbonnaya of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Zuba, Abuja.
Justice Ogbonnaya expressed displeasure over the defendant’s consecutive absence from court without any verifiable justification, noting that no medical report had been properly filed before the court to support the defence’s claim that Mohammed was ill and receiving treatment.
*EFCC
The trial of the National Coordinator of the Multi-Sectoral Crisis Recovery Project (MCRP) of the North East Development Commission (NEDC), Danjuma Mohammed, was again stalled on Thursday, June 25, 2026, following his absence before Justice K. N. Ogbonnaya of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Zuba, Abuja.
Justice Ogbonnaya expressed displeasure over the defendant’s consecutive absence from court without any verifiable justification, noting that no medical report had been properly filed before the court to support the defence’s claim that Mohammed was ill and receiving treatment.
Mohammed, the first defendant, is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alongside Prince Achem and Aminu Alhaji, who is at large, on an amended 54-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence, financial fraud and forgery involving an alleged N2.2 billion.
At Monday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel Joshua Saidi informed the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed with its witnesses, who were present in court to testify.
However, counsel to the first defendant, Chuka Obidike, told the court that Mohammed was still undergoing surgery. He sought to tender a medical report and requested an adjournment.
Counsel to the second defendant, J. J. Usman, said he had come prepared for the hearing but was constrained after learning from the first defendant’s counsel that his client had undergone a second surgery and might require a third because of health complications.
In response, Saidi urged the court to reject the medical report and refuse the application for adjournment, arguing that neither the court nor the prosecution had been formally served with any medical report explaining the defendant’s continued absence.
“My lord, I apply that it should be on record that this is not the first time; this is the second time that our witnesses are coming all the way from the North-East. As I speak, no written report from the first defendant has been brought to my attention nor has it been served on me. My lord, if we had received prior notice, we wouldn’t have bothered our witnesses to come from the North-East. The implication now is that when this defendant jumps bail, we may not know who the surety is. Therefore, counsel is not in a position to tell the court the whereabouts of the first defendant. We submit that there is no reasonable excuse why the first defendant is not in court. In the circumstances, I apply for the revocation of his bail, the issuance of a bench warrant against him, and a notice to the surety to show cause why the bail bond should not be forfeited. We therefore urge your lordship to discountenance their excuses and grant our prayer.”
In her ruling, Justice Ogbonnaya faulted the attempt to tender the medical report, explaining that no witness was testifying and no trial proceedings were ongoing at the time. She held that the document could not be admitted in evidence under those circumstances and should instead be submitted through a formal application filed with the court registrar.
“The application is misleading, as counsel did not serve the court with any medical report at the last adjourned date. The court is surprised that counsel in this matter did not deem it fit to serve the court when they knew it ought to have been served.
“Even if an application is made at the Court of Appeal regarding bail, that does not mean the defendant will jump bail at the lower court. As far as I am concerned, the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown to the court. The oral submission that he is due for surgery is based on hearsay, not verification.
“Nobody is receiving the application because the court is not conducting a trial, and no witness is testifying. The court has laid bare all that has transpired. However, the court will not revoke the bail but will exercise its discretionary powers. The court will adjourn for the last time at the instance of the first defendant for now, while the issue of bail revocation will remain in abeyance,” the judge ruled.
Justice Ogbonnaya subsequently adjourned the case until September 25 and 29, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.
