The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Thursday, told Justice Oyindamola Ogala of the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja that the embattled Chairman of Ibeto Energy Development Company, Chief Cletus Ibeto, has allegedly paid back N2.250 billion to the commission.

The EFCC made this claim through its lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), at the ongoing trial of Chief Ibeto and his companies, Ibeto Energy Development Company and Odoh Holdings Ltd, over an alleged N4.8 billion fraud.

The EFCC had filed a 10-count charge of conspiracy, fraud, forgery, and fraudulent use of documents, obtaining by false pretense an alleged sum of $3000,000 and about N3.200,000,000 from Chief Daniel Chukwudozie and his company, Dozzy Oil and Gas Ltd; against the businessman and his companies.

However, the planned arraignment of the defendant has been stalled on seven occasions due to his failure to appear in court, although his lawyers represented him.

At the proceedings Thursday, Jacobs also informed Justice Ogala that the anti-graft agency is now in a dilemma because the defendant had refused to appear before the court but sent his lawyers to the Commission’s office to negotiate on how to proceed with the case.

He said, “We need to know what their plans are. Are they planning to continue with the litigation, or do they want to sit with the prosecution and complainant to negotiate an out-of-court settlement?

“He has paid back a large part of the money, and we need to know whether we should use it as an exhibit or consider it his commitment to an out-of-court settlement because they have continued to file different applications challenging the court’s competence to hear the matter. 

The defence counsel, Adebayo Oshodi, did not respond to the EFCC’s claims but sought the leave of the court to relist an application challenging the court’s territorial jurisdiction, which he had voluntarily withdrawn at the court’s last sitting. 

This move was opposed by Jacobs, who argued that since the application was withdrawn at the instance of the defence team and then struck out by the court, it could not be relisted before the same court.

Justice Ogala, in her intervention, agreed with Jacobs. She said that the counsel voluntarily withdrew the application, and she did not believe the same could be relisted.

The judge also frowned at the alleged action of the defendant, who refused to appear before the court but continued to pay back the money he was accused of obtaining from the complainant. 

She, however, said that she would not comment on the move by the prosecution and the defence to settle the matter out of court as she was only focused on the case before her.

After being informed by the lawyers that the appeal challenging the court’s jurisdiction before the Court of Appeal is still pending, Justice Ogala adjourned the case to October 24 for further hearing.