N1bn Fraud: Court Orders Lawyer To Produce Fleeing Chinese Client For Prosecution
Based on an unmeritorious arguments of a lawyer, Charles Adeyoriju, Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has ordered him to produce his fleeing Chinese client, Mr. Su Donghai, in court on May 22, 2025, for arraignment on alleged N1 billion fraud.
The fleeing Chinese is being charged before the court alongside two Nigerians, and two companies by the operatives of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (Force CID) Alagbon-Ikoyi, Ikoyi, Lagos.
The two Nigerians and the companies charged alongside the fleeing Chinese in a charge marked FHC/L/695c/2024, are: Stanley Tochukwu Okafor, 41, Ogunade Oladele Oluwaseun, 40, WNW Energy Technical Development Limited and HAOTI International Limited.
All the defendants are to face 11 counts charge of conspiracy, forgery, obtaining by false pretence and fraud.
Justice Aluko ordered the lawyer, Adeyoriju, to produce his client, while ruling on the submissions made by the prosecutor, Barrister S. A. Ogalla.
The judge had adjourned the matter till Tuesday, for the defendants’ arraignment.
But at the resumed arraignment of the defendants, Barrister Ogalla from ForceCID Annex, and a lawyer from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Tolulope Moloku, announced their appearance for the prosecution.
Barrister Ayi Ekpenyoung Ema and Barrister Kayode Lawal, announced their appearance for Stanley Tochukwu Okafor; Ogunade Oladele Oluwaseun, while Barrister Charles Adeyoriju for the Chinese, Mr. Su Donghai and his company, Haoti International Limited; Barrister Adeboyejo Aromolaran announced his appearance for the first defendant’s firm, WNW Energy Technical Development Limited, while Barrister Joseph Oko announced appearance for the nominal complainant, CNOTS Energy Services Nigeria Limited in the charge.
While other defendants were in court for their arraignment, the fleeing Chinese, was nowhere to be found. The situation which made the presiding judge to asked from his lawyer, Adeyoriju, of the whereabouts of his client. And he told the court that his client is in China and assured the court that the Chinese man will be in court at the next adjourned date.
The matter was about to be adjourned pursuant to the request of the counsel from the AGF’s, who had told the court that the office of AGF is still in the process of retrieving the case file from the police. However, before the lawyer could ends his submission, the lawyer to the fleeing Chinese man, Adeyoriju, vehemently opposed the adjournment sought, on the ground that the arraignment of the defendants has been stalled on four occasions at the instance of the prosecution.
Citing the equitable principle of he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, the Judge immediately berated the counsel to the Chinese National, Adeyoriju stating that since his client has not been present in Court for arraignment, it is the Chinese man that is stalling arraignment. Efforts by Adeyoriju to put up further arguments were no longer entertained by the Court.
Following Adeyoriju’s argument, the prosecuting police officer, Barrister Ogalla, responded on point of law citing Sections 174 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) to the effect that the Attorney General of the Federation has the power to take over a case from the police and continue prosecution. He further relied on the provision of Section 66 of the Police Act 2020 to argue that the Police has the power to prosecute a case, such powers, having been donated by the AGF’s office.
He submitted that since Adeyoriju’s argument is that arraignment is being stalled by the Prosecution, the Court should either issue a bench warrant against the fleeing Chinese National, Mr. Donghai Su to compel his attendance in court at the next adjourned date, or order Adeyoriju to produce him in Court for arraignment at the next adjourned date for speedy hearing of the matter.
Ruling on parties’ submissions, Justice Aluko while adjourning the arraignment of the defendants to May 22, 2025 ordered Barrister Adeyoriju to produce his client in court for arraignment at the next adjourned date.
In the charge the operatives of the ForceCID alleged that all the defendants and others at large, conspired among themselves to commit the alleged acts between January, 2020 and April, 2023.
They were also alleged to have fraudulently obtained the sum of N1 billion belonging to CNOTS Energy Services Limited, represented by Femi Folayan.
To commit the alleged fraud, all the defendants were alleged to have forged 89 invoices, with the intention to fraudulently defraud CNOTS Energy Services Energy Limited.
The first defendant, Stanley Tochukwu Okafor, was accused of falsely deposing to an affidavit on Oath on February 13, 2024 at the Lagos State High Court Registry, Lagos, wherein he attached 29 invoice receipts of WNW Energy Technical Development Company Limited.
He was also alleged to have on February 20, 2020 at Lagos, Nigeria, falsely present himself as the Managing Director of WNW Energy Technical Development Company Limited.
While the second defendant, Ogunade Oladele Oluwaseun, was alleged to have between year 2021 and 2023 at Lagos Nigeria, while acting as CNOTS Energy Services Nigeria Limited’s Chief Financial Officer, deliberately manipulated CNOTS accounting records and inserted fictitious figures in CNOTS accounting record without any corresponding piece of invoices to validate such entries.
The Chinese man, Su Donghai, was also alleged to have between January, 2020 and April, 2023 transferred into a bank account number 2065454879 UBA Plc and retained the sum of about N1 billion, belonging to CNOTS Energy Services Limited.
The defendants’ alleged offences, according to the prosecution, contravened sections 8; 1(3) and 7(2)(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
The Defendants’ acts are also contrary to, and punishable under sections 20(b) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 Act No. 14. And sections 1(1}(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, CAP. M17 LFN 2004.
The prosecution also stated that their actions contravened sections 390(9); 117 and 484 of the Criminal Code Act, LFN 2004.