From Godwin Tsa Abuja
The Abuja division of the Federal High Court has fixed June 30 for ruling on the bail application filed by three detained promoters of Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX) in the alleged over $1billion fraud.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Fadila Yusuf, and the defence counsel had adopted their written arguments for and against the application.
The court had, on April 24, gave the EFCC the go-ahead to arrest and detain six operators of CBEX over their involvement in the fraud
Justice Nwite gave the order after the prosecution counsel Yusuf, moved an ex-parte motion to the effect.
He said the detention would be pending the conclusion of investigation of the alleged offences and possible prosecution.
The defendants are six suspects include Adefowora Abiodun Olanipekun, Adefowora Oluwanisola, Emmanuel Uko, Seyi Oloyede, Avwerosuo Otorudo and Chukwuebuka Ehirim.
In the motion ex-parte dated and filed April 23 by Yusuf, the anti-graft agency gave four grounds for its application.
She said the EFCC has a statutory duty of prevention and detection of financial crimes through investigation.
Yusuf said that “the defendants are at large and a warrant of arrest is required to arrest the defendants for proper investigation and prosecution of this case.”
Both Adefowora Abiodun, Avwerosuo Otorudo, and Chukwuebuka Ehirim have been in the EFCC’s custody on investigation.
Upon resumed hearing on Wednesday, Babatunde Busari, who appeared for Abiodun, and Justice Otorudo, who represented Otorudo and Ehirim, informed the court that they had filed bail applications on their clients’ behalf.
“We have a pending application dated May 20, 2025 and filed same date. We are ready to proceed my lord,” Busari said.
Otorudo equally told the court that he filed a bail application on behalf of Otorudo and Ehirim dated May 8 but filed May 9.
Busari said though they were in receipt of the EFCC’s counter affidavit this morning, they were ready to proceed.
“We will reply to the counter affidavit on points of law my lord,” he said.
Busari said the bail application was brought pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36, 41 and 46 of the constitution (as amended) and Sections 159, 259, 296 and 298 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
He said the application sought an order granting Abiodun bail on liberal terms from the EFCC’s custody pending the preferment of charge if any against him.
He said it also sought an interim order compelling the EFCC to produce him before the court for the purpose of the court granting him bail from commission’s custody as guaranteed by relevant sections of the law.
Busari, while giving the grounds for the application, said the court on April 24, issued an arrest warrant and a remand order against Abiodun and other persons in respect of CBEX.
The lawyer, however, said that prior to April 24, Abiodun had, through his counsel, reached out to the EFCC on April 22 that he was ready to surrender himself for investigation, and that on April 28, he turned himself in for investigation.
He said Abiodun, who is suffering from a severe ailment, had since been in custody of the anti-graft agency without bail since April 28, more than the statutory prescribed 14 days.
He said the EFCC latched on to the facts that the order of the court did not prescribe time and could detain Abiodun for as long they wanted in breach of his right.
Besides, he argued that no charge had been field against him for any infraction of the law in any competent court of law.
Busari argued that the entirety of the counter affidavit filed by the prosecution counsel, did not controvert Abiodun’s affidavit in support of the bail application, citing two previous cases to back his submission.
In addition, he argued that though the totality of the EFCC’s counter affidavit was hinged on the arguement that Abiodun might likely jump bail, he reminded that Abiodun voluntarily surrendered himself to the commission.
Besides, he argued that the country’s legal system recognises the presumption of a suspect as innocent until proven guilty and that the assumption that he might likely jump bail should not be a basis for bail denial.
He said his detention for about 40 days contradicted Sections 295 and 296 of the Administrative of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, which stipulated 14 days for a remand order and another 14 days extension.
On his part, counsel to the 5th and 6th defendants, Otorudo also argued in the same vein.
He said his application sought an order varying the earlier order granting the EFCC leave to arrest and detain his clients pending conclusion of investigation or possible arraignment/trial.
The lawyer, who gave six grounds, said the 5th and 6th defendants voluntarily surrendered themselves to the investigation since April 25, and that up till date, they were still in custody without being admitted to bail.
He said if granted bail, the applicants are willing and ready to be available for further investigation and attend court whenever it required.
“We have four paragraphed affidavit in support. We also have two exhibits in urging my lord to grant the application
“By way of adumbration, we submit that my lord at this point will consider whether there are material facts to show whether the applicants will be available for trial,” he said.
Otorudo disagreed with the EFCC’s arguement on the severity of the charge against his clients.
“We submit that the charge annexed as exhibit, in its totality, does not raise any severe offence that will deter the applicants from not .being granted bail.”
He argued that the offences they are being charged with are bailable ones.
He, therefore, prayed the court to use its discretion in their favour.
Responding, Yusuf vehemently opposed their application bail.
She said in response to Abiodun’s application, a five paragraph counter affidavit was filed with three exhibits.
The EFCC’s lawyer observed that Abiodun, in his prayer, sought a bail pending the preferment of a charge against him.
“Our submission is that this prayer has been overtaken by event as a charge has already been filed before this honourable court and we urge you to so hold,” she said.
She also urged the court to discounbtenance the 5th and 6th defendants’ application for bail.
According to Yusuf, all the defendants in this matter are being charged for offence of obtaining over N1 billion dollars, more than some states’ budgets in Nigeria.
“It is in fact more than a budget of about 10 states joined together my lord,” she said.
She said the commission was still receiving petitions from victims of the alleged fraud.
The lawyer said though granting bail is at the discretion of the court, this should be done judiciously and judicially.
“We urge my lord not to grant this application,” she concluded.
The prosecution agency, had in the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, said sometimes in April 2025, it received an intel bothering on an alleged investment scheme fraud against the defendants.
It alleged that the defendants and their company, ST Technologies International Limited, using another company, Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX) perpetrated the alleged fraud and the case was received and assigned to its Cybercrimes Section for investigation.
The agency said the preliminary investigation into the intel revealed the following:
“That Messrs.Adefowora Abiodun Olanipekun, Adefowora Oluwanisola, Emmanuel Uko and Seyi Oloyede, using their company ST Technologies International Limited, promoted another company Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX) by making advert and lured unsuspecting members of public to invest crypto currencies on CBEX investment platform.”
The EFCC averred that the defendants promised unrealistic return on investment of up to 100%.
“That the victims were made to convert their digital assets into a stable coin of USDT for onward deposit into the suspects crypto wallet.
“That the victims were initially given full access to the platform to monitor their investment.
“That following deposits valued at over 1 Billion Dollars by the victims, the CBEX investment platform became inaccessible to them and they could no longer withdraw from the investment made.
“That the victims later discovered that the said scheme is a scam.
“That during the course of investigation, it was discovered that the said ST Technologies International Limited though registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), it was not registered with the security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for investment purposes.
“That it was also discovered during investigation that the defendants had moved out of their last known address in Lagos and Ogun States.”
The anti-graft agency said that a warrant of arrest was required to place the defendants on red watch list so that they could be traced and arrested to answer to the case against them.
In urging the court to grant the application, EFCC submitted that investigation into the allegation against the defendants revealed a prima facie case of investment scam.