The scheduled 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, was on Tuesday stalled due to the absence of the defendants in court.
The case, which was listed before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja, involves allegations of money laundering against the bank’s top officials by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The anti-graft agency is accusing Buba and Mbagwu of conspiracy and facilitating cash payments totalling $12 million to various individuals, in violation of sections of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho (SAN), informed the court that the prosecution had not succeeded in serving the charges on the defendants.
“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,” Iheanacho said.
“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,” he added.
“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 further requested an adjournment, stating, “Subject to the court’s convenience, we are seeking June 4 for arraignment.”
In response, J.J. Usman (SAN), counsel for the defendants, said his clients had not received official service and only became aware of the arraignment through social media reports.
“Our clients instructed us to appear in court because they read about the case on social media. They have not been served,” Usman said.
“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 submitted.
Usman also expressed concern that failure to serve the defendants through their counsel might lead the prosecution to arrest and publicly parade them, a move he argued would be prejudicial.
Responding, Iheanacho described the concern as premature and unfounded, noting that the fear expressed by the defence is speculative.
“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 stated.
Following submissions from both sides, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter to June 4, 2025, for arraignment.
He further directed the prosecution to file and present its application for substituted service on or before Thursday, May 29, 2025.