Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, ordered the return of the case file involving the Bauchi State Commissioner for Finance, Yakubu Adamu, to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, for reassignment to a substantive judge. The order was made by Justice Emeka Nwite, who explained that the matter was originally handled as a vacation case and therefore required formal reassignment for substantive hearing.
Justice Nwite gave the directive while presiding over proceedings connected to the criminal charges filed against Adamu by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The judge clarified that his involvement in the matter was limited by the procedural status under which the case was initially brought before the court. According to him, the case was entertained during the court’s vacation period and, following the conclusion of that period, could no longer be retained by him for trial.
While delivering the ruling, Justice Nwite stated that the proper course of action under the rules of court was to return the file to the registry for onward transmission to the Chief Judge, who is constitutionally empowered to reassign the matter to a substantive judge. He emphasized that this step was purely procedural and did not touch on the merits or otherwise of the charges against the defendants.
Yakubu Adamu is standing trial alongside three other defendants, namely Balarabe Abdullahi Ilelah, Aminu Mohammed Bose, and Kabiru Yahaya Mohammed. The four were arraigned by the EFCC on Wednesday, December 31, 2025, on a ten-count charge bordering on alleged terrorism financing and related money laundering offences. The charges are brought under Sections 2(1) and 19(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and are punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.
One of the counts alleges that Adamu, in his capacity as Commissioner for Finance of the Bauchi State Government, sometime in 2024 and within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, received cash payments amounting to six million, nine hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars otherwise than through a financial institution. The prosecution contends that this act contravenes the provisions of the Money Laundering Act, which mandates that large financial transactions be conducted through recognized financial institutions to ensure transparency and traceability.
At their arraignment, all four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges, setting the stage for a full trial. The court had earlier, on Monday, January 5, 2026, refused the bail applications filed on their behalf and ordered that they be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the commencement of trial. That ruling was based on the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the allegations and the need to ensure the defendants’ availability for trial.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, counsel to the defendants, Chief Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, informed the court that the defence was fully prepared for the commencement of trial. He indicated readiness to proceed immediately, notwithstanding the procedural issues surrounding the assignment of the case. The prosecution, on its part, introduced a new lead counsel, Adebayo Ojo, who appeared on behalf of the EFCC to handle the matter going forward.
Despite the expressed readiness of both parties, Justice Nwite maintained that the court could not proceed with substantive trial proceedings due to the procedural posture of the case. In restating his position, the judge explained that vacation matters are, by their nature, temporary and are expected to be reassigned once the regular court session resumes. He noted that retaining the matter beyond that stage would be inconsistent with established judicial practice and the administrative framework of the Federal High Court.
Justice Nwite said he had carefully listened to the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the defendants and agreed that the matter fell squarely within the category of cases that must be returned for reassignment. He explained that after the vacation period, such cases are returned to the registrar and then forwarded to the Chief Judge, who assigns them to judges with substantive jurisdiction to hear and determine them to finality.
In his words, the judge stated that it was not in doubt that the case was a vacation matter which had already been returned to the registry after the vacation. He added that the only lawful step was for the file to be sent to the Chief Judge for proper reassignment to a substantive judge who would thereafter handle all aspects of the trial. The explanation was intended to clarify that the court’s decision was driven strictly by procedural requirements and not by any delay tactics or substantive objections.
The ruling effectively pauses further proceedings in the case until the Chief Judge reassigns it to another judge of the Federal High Court. Once reassigned, the new trial judge is expected to take over the matter, review previous orders made during the vacation period, and determine the next steps, including the scheduling of trial dates and the possible reconsideration of bail applications, if any are brought before the court.
The case has attracted significant public attention due to the high-profile status of the first defendant and the nature of the allegations. As a serving Commissioner for Finance, Adamu occupies a strategic position within the Bauchi State Government, and the charges against him raise broader questions about financial accountability, public office, and compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws in Nigeria.
Legal observers note that the court’s decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in criminal trials, particularly in high-stakes cases. They point out that while vacation courts serve an essential function in handling urgent matters, the transition back to regular court sessions requires careful administrative handling to avoid jurisdictional or procedural defects that could later affect the validity of proceedings.
For the defendants, the reassignment means continued detention at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending further directions from the court, unless a fresh bail application is successfully made before the new trial judge. For the prosecution, it provides an opportunity to reorganize its case and prepare for trial under the supervision of a substantive judge.
As the matter awaits reassignment, all eyes remain on the office of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, whose decision on the allocation of the case will determine how quickly the trial proceeds. Until then, the charges against Yakubu Adamu and his co-defendants remain pending, with the presumption of innocence continuing to apply until proven otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments