The scheduled arraignment of a Nigeria businessman, Jimmy Okojie Odiamehi, before a Federal High Court, Lagos, over the alleged fraudulent collection and use of N673, 753, 534. million, received as rental income from a property in Lekki Phase I, Lagos State, was stalled due to his absence.
Odiamehi was to be arraigned on Monday, before Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa on a three count-charge of alleged fraud and retention of proceeds obtained through fraudulent means in a charge marked FHC/LAG/CR/443/2026, filed by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
He was alleged to have committed the offences between February 2016 and May 2026 in Lagos, involving a property belonging to one Engineer Godwin Boyitete Omene at No. 7, Fola Osibo Street, Lekki Phase I, Lagos State.
The charges against the defendant reads: “that you, Jimmy Okojie Odiamehi, sometime between February 2016 and May 2026, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with intent to defraud, falsely represented to Engr. Godwin Boyitete Omene that you would undertake the development of his property situate at No. 7, Fola Osibo Street, Lekki Phase I, Lagos State, for his benefit and thereby induced him to confer upon you possession, access, control and proprietary benefits over the said property, which representation you knew to be false.
“That you, Jimmy Okojie Odiamehi, sometime between February 2016 and May 2026, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with intent to defraud, by means of the false representation that you were lawfully entitled to exercise control and management over the property situate at No. 7, Fola Osibo Street, Lekki Phase I, Lagos State, obtained pecuniary benefits in the sum of N673, 753, 534.00 (Six Hundred and Seventy Three Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Four Naira) being rental income collected from tenants occupying the property, which representation you knew to be false.
“That you, Jimmy Okojie Odiamehi, sometime between February 2016 and May 2026, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, knowingly retained and utilized the sum of N673,753,534.00 (Six Hundred and Seventy,Three Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Four Naira), being proceeds obtained through fraudulent means from rental income generated from the property belonging to Engr. Godwin Boyitete Omene.”
The alleged offences according to the prosecution are contrary to Section 1(1)(a) and punishable under Section 1(3), 1(1)(a) and 17(a)of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
Meanwhile, at the monday’s hearing of the matter, which was fixed for the defendant’s arraignment, Mr. U. U Rabiu appeared, Mr. Bernard Udemba announced his appearance for the defendant, but the defendant, Jimmy Okojie Odiamehi, was not in court.
Following the defendant’s absence, the prosecutor, info the court that the day’s business was for the defendant’s arraignment. Saying that the defendant was aware of the arrraignment but failed to be in court.
He thereafter cited section 113 of the 2015’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), and prayed the court to issue a bench warrant against the defendant.
However, the defendant’s lawyer objected to the prosecutor’s request, saying that the charges against his client was an abuse of Court processes. Adding that his client has filed an application challenging the competence of the charge.
In response, the prosecutor told the court that the essence of the defendant’s application is to abort his arrraignment on the charges against him.
Based on the arguments of parties, Justice Lewis-Allagoa, after citing plethoras of legal authorites, order both the prosecution and defence to address the court on the application to be taken first.
“Question that arises is whether the defence counsel is allowed to move its notice of objection bordering on the jurisdiction of this Honourable court to entertain the change. Even though, the defendant is absent to take his plea.
“Upon that question, both the prosecution and the defence are hereby ordered to address the court of the competence of the notice of the preliminary objection before the taking of plea by the absent defendant,” the judge ruled.
The matter has been adjourned to December 1, for adoption of addresses on the preliminary objection.
