Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, on Thursday dismissed a bail application filed by a serial fraudster, Emmanuel Nwude.
Nwude alongside Emmanuel Ilechukwu and Rowland Kalu were arraigned on. March 2, 2018 on a 15-count charge bordering on forgery and dealing in forfeited property.
One of the count reads: “That you Emmanuel Nwude, Emmanuel Ilechukwu and Rowland Kalu, on or about the 12th day of January 2011, at Lagos
within the Ikeja Judicial Division, conspired to forge a Power of Attorney dated 12th day of January 2011, issued in the name of Mankris Venture Limited purporting that Mankris Venture Limited is the owner of Plot Y, Mobolaji Johnson Street, Oregun, Alausa, Lagos, whereas you knew that the property was forfeited to the victims of crime as
restitution in the judgment delivered on 18th day of 2005 by Honourable Justice Joseph Oyewole in ID/92c/04- FRN vs. Emmanuel Nwude and
Six Others and the victims subsequently sold the property to Rossab Industrial Design Limited and which Rossab Industrial Limited later assigned to G.C Nweze and Company Limited, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 467(2)(m) of the Criminal Code Law Cap C17, Lagos State, 2003.”
The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against them.
Both the second and the third defendants were granted bail.
However, the judge had adjourned to March 6, 2018 for hearing of the bail application of the first defendant.
At the March 6, 2018 sitting, counsel to the first defendant, Stephen Amallagoge, had brought before the court a summons for bail application on behalf of his client.
He had also prayed the court to grant Nwude bail pending the hearing and determination of the charge against him.
However, the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, had urged the court not to grant the bail application.
Oyedepo, in a 10-paragraph counter-affidavit, had urged the court to dismiss the application on the grounds that the first defendant, Nwude, is not a first-time offender.
“He was convicted by a court in a matter that affected the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the International Community,” Oyedepo had further argued.
In her ruling, Justice Dada had held that she was not satisfied with Nwude’s application and expressed doubts that he would stand trial if granted bail.
At the resumed hearing today, Nwude’s counsel, Victor Okpara, prayed the court to allow the first defendant to travel temporarily abroad for medical treatment, claiming that he( Nwude) is suffering from a terminal illness.
However, the prosecution counsel, Nnemeka Omewa, objected to the bail application, saying that there was no material fact strong enough to convince the court to admit the first defendant to bail.
“So, the court cannot and does not exercise discretion in vacuum,” he further argued.
In her ruling, Justice Dada held that there was no change in circumstances that could warrant bail to the first defendant, Nwude and consequently dismissed his bail application.
Meanwhile, a prosecution witness, Dapo Ojochukwu, also revealed to the court how Nwude and the other defendants sold a property that had been forfeited by a court order.
Led in evidence by Omewa, the witness told the court that Rossab Industrial Design Limited, where he worked as Managing Director in 2005, negotiated the purchase of the forfeited property through an agency called Mankris Ventures.
He said the property was later leased to Rossab Industrial Design Limited for five years to the tune of N126m, which was paid to the recipient through Ecobank Plc.
In his further testimony, the witness told the court that Rossab Industrial Design Limited later assigned it to G.C. Nweze and Company Limited.
“Part of the sales agreements was for Rossab Industrial Design Limited to be a tenant to the said property,” added.
The witness also told the court that after the property was assigned by Rossab Industrial Design Limited, the second defendant, Roland Kalu, came to the premises of the property with thugs, who damage some property and goods, thereby making it impossible for the company’s business to function.
The prosecution counsel, therefore, sought to tender relevant documents, including the ‘Power of Attorney’ said to be forged by the defendants as evidence in court.
The defence counsel, however, objected to the admissibility of the forged Power of Attorney.
They told the court that the document was not a registered instrument and did not reflect the payment of fees for certification.
In his response, the prosecution counsel told the court that the document was duly registered and was a true certified copy.
“My Lord, it has the receipt for payment for certification,” he added.
The judge, in another ruling, overruled the objection of the defence counsel and admitted all documents sought to be tendered by the prosecution in evidence.
Consequently, Justice Dada adjourned the case to May 22, June 4 and 8, 2018 for continuation of trial.
