This case revolves around forgery allegations leveled against Azubuike Ishiekwene, Chairman of Cleanserve, and Olalekan Abdul, the company’s Managing Director/CEO, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The initial 26-count charge, filed in 2019, encompassed forgery, conspiracy, unauthorized use of false documents, possession of fraudulent documents, theft, and unauthorized document creation. Both defendants pleaded not guilty, initiating a five-year legal battle that involved numerous witnesses from both the prosecution and the defense. The complexities of the case stemmed from allegations of corruption within the EFCC itself, specifically a $20,000 bribe allegedly solicited by an operative to dismiss the case.
The turning point in the case arose from accusations of internal corruption within the EFCC. An operative was accused of demanding a $20,000 bribe to “kill the matter,” claiming the complainant, Mr. Chris Ndulue, had no valid case. This allegation triggered an internal investigation within the EFCC, leading to a sting operation that resulted in the operative’s apprehension. The $20,000 was recovered and presented as evidence in court. This revelation cast a shadow over the EFCC’s prosecution and prompted a review by the Lagos State Attorney-General’s office. This internal investigation and subsequent review significantly impacted the trajectory of the case, shifting the focus from the initial allegations against Ishiekwene and Abdul towards the integrity of the EFCC’s investigation.
The Lagos State Attorney-General, Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN), assumed control of the case following the bribery allegations. After reviewing the evidence, the AG’s office filed a notice of discontinuance for a significant portion of the charges, citing Section 211 (1) (C) of the Constitution. While the EFCC initially resisted this move, it eventually conceded to dropping 20 of the 26 counts, which were based on Lagos State criminal laws. This left a single count against Ishiekwene, which was subsequently dropped, leading to his discharge under Section 155 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), 2021. The remaining charges against Abdul were then reframed under federal law, placing them outside the jurisdiction of the Lagos State court.
The case took another turn when the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), took over the proceedings just before Abdul’s arraignment on the amended charges. The AGF, exercising powers under Section 108 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, decided to withdraw the remaining charges and discontinue the case. This action effectively brought an end to the prosecution’s efforts. The AGF’s intervention signifies a recognition of the compromised nature of the initial investigation and the need for a thorough review of the case’s merits.
Justice Mojisola Dada, presiding over the case, delivered her judgment on March 5, 2025, discharging and acquitting both defendants. Citing Section 73 (1) and (11) ACJL, 2021, Justice Dada’s ruling effectively cleared Ishiekwene and Abdul of all charges. The final judgment represents a legal victory for the defendants, but also underscores the importance of upholding due process and addressing issues of corruption within law enforcement agencies. The case highlights the potential for prosecutorial misconduct to undermine the justice system and emphasizes the need for accountability and transparency in investigations.
This protracted legal battle, spanning five years and involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies, ultimately resulted in the acquittal of both defendants. The case underscores the crucial role of judicial oversight in ensuring fairness and protecting individuals from potentially malicious prosecutions. The allegations of corruption within the EFCC, the subsequent takeover of the case by both the Lagos State AG and the AGF, and the eventual acquittal paint a complex picture of the challenges faced in pursuing justice while combating corruption within the very institutions tasked with upholding the law. The case serves as a reminder of the fragility of justice and the importance of constant vigilance against potential abuses of power.
