The arraignment of SunTrust Bank Ltd’s Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Halima Buba, and Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer, Innocent Mbagwu, over alleged $12 million money laundering failed to happen on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, after both defendants were absent.
Recall that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, recently accused Buba and Mbagwu of conspiracy and facilitating cash payments to various individuals, an offence that directly violates sections of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
At yesterday’s proceedings, EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN), told the court that the prosecution is yet to successfully serve the charges on the defendants.
According to him, while the defendants are well aware of the proceedings, since their legal representatives were present in court, their reps decided to receive the service on behalf of their clients.
“The prosecution has not been able to serve the defendants. Ironically, they are apparently aware of today’s proceedings as their legal representatives are in court.
My learned brother silk friend informed me earlier that they are willing to receive the service on behalf of their clients.
We do not oppose this but we wish to comply with Section 382(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which requires us to bring an application for substituted service by way of an ex parte application.
This can be taken before the next adjourned date, and both parties have agreed that the arraignment can be rescheduled for June 4, 2025,” he said.
Requesting an adjournment, he said, “Subject to the court’s convenience, we are seeking June 4 for arraignment.”
Responding, counsel for the defendants, J.J. Usman (SAN), revealed that his clients did not receive official service and only found out about the arraignment via social media reports.
He maintained that not serving his clients through their counsel could result in the prosecution arresting and publicly parading them, which would be unnecessary.
“Our clients instructed us to appear in court because they read about the case on social media. They have not been served.
We approached the learned silk for the prosecution and undertook to accept service on behalf of our clients. We asked him to serve us, but he refused. My lord has made several orders in similar matters allowing service through legal representatives.
We are here and are pleading with the court to direct that service be effected on us. We are ready to appear with our clients on the next adjourned date,” Usman said.
Reacting, Ekele said that such fear of arrest is speculative at best, and the court never acts on speculation.
He concluded by saying that until the court grants substituted service, the prosecution has every right to arrest the defendants once spotted.
“The court cannot make that order now until a formal application is brought. The fear expressed by the defence is speculative. The court does not dwell on speculation.
We do not want to create a landmine where the issue of service could later become a basis to challenge the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
It is better to make haste slowly, as over-speeding kills. Until the court grants substituted service, the prosecution reserves the right to arrest the defendants if found,” he added.
After hearing from both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the case to June 4, 2025, for arraignment.
