THE Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) today informed Justice Oyindamola Ogala of the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja that Cletus Ibeto, Chairman of Ibeto Energy Development Company, has returned N2.250 billion to the commission.
The EFCC revealed this through its lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Rotimi Jacobs, during the ongoing trial of Ibeto and his companies, Ibeto Energy Development Company and Odoh Holdings Ltd, over an alleged N4.8 billion fraud.
The EFCC issued a 10-count complaint against the businessman and his firms for conspiracy, fraud, forgery, and fraudulent use of papers.
However, the defendant’s planned arraignment has been stalled on at least seven occasions due to his refusal to appear in court, even though he was always represented by his lawyers.
At today’s sessions, Jacobs informed Justice Ogala that the anti-graft agency is now in a quandary because the defendant has failed to appear in court and instead prefers to come to the Commission’s office to negotiate how to settle his debt.
Jacobs said, “We need to know what their plans are. Are they planning to continue with the litigation, or do they want to sit with the prosecution and complainant to negotiate an out-of-court settlement?
“He has paid back a large part of the money, and we need to know whether we should use it as an exhibit or consider it his commitment to an out-of-court settlement because they have continued to file different applications challenging the court’s competence to hear the matter”.
Adebayo Oshodi, the defence attorney, did not react to the EFCC’s charges, but instead sought leave from the court to relist a motion challenging the court’s territorial jurisdiction, which he had voluntarily withdrawn at the previous sitting.
Jacobs opposed this move, arguing that because the application was withdrawn at the request of the defence team and subsequently dismissed by the court, it could not be relisted before the same court.
Justice Ogala, in her intervention, agreed with Jacobs. She stated that the attorney voluntarily withdrew the application, which she did not believe could be relisted.
The judge also frowned at the defendant’s refusal to appear in court while continuing to appear before the anti-graft agency to repay the money he was suspected of acquiring from the complainant.
Justice Ogala stated that she would not comment on the prosecution and defence’s decision to settle the dispute outside of court since she was only concerned with the case before her.
After being notified by the counsel that the appeal challenging the court’s jurisdiction before the Court of Appeal is still pending, Justice Ogala adjourned the case until October 24 for further proceedings.
