Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on Monday sought to re-arraign three senior National Assembly officials for alleged conspiracy, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and illegal conversion of funds totalling over N337 million belonging to the National Assembly. However, the re-arraignment was stalled after defence counsel raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of several counts in the amended charge.
The defendants are Aishatu Bappa El‑Nafaty, Director of Public Affairs in the Directorate of Special Duties and Parliamentary Security, National Assembly; Mamud Alhaji Abubakar, a former Permanent Secretary in the National Assembly services; and Igba Ityoakura Joseph, a Deputy Director of Procurement in the National Assembly. They were scheduled to be re-arraigned before Justice Muhammed Zubairu of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Jikwoyi, Abuja, on an amended 23‑count charge.
The alleged offences include conspiracy, forgery, criminal breach of trust, official corruption, and illegal conversion of funds belonging to the National Assembly. According to the charge sheet, the total amount involved is N337,062,350 (Three Hundred and Thirty‑Seven Million, Sixty‑two Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Naira). The alleged crimes occurred sometime between 2017 and 2019.
However, when the case was called, the re-arraignment could not proceed. Muhammed Ndayako, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria representing the second defendant, filed a preliminary objection asking the court to strike out counts three, four, five, six, seven and 18 of the amended charge dated October 8, 2025. Ndayako argued that those counts were “incompetent and an attempt to resuscitate already quashed counts”, citing a ruling delivered by Justice Zubairu himself on May 12, 2025.
Prosecution counsel, Francis Usani, expressed frustration at the timing of the objection. He told the court that he was served the preliminary objection only on Friday, June 5, 2026, even though the defendants had more than a month from the previous adjournment to file it. He argued that the objection was frivolous, incompetent, and intended solely to frustrate the re-arraignment, and urged the court to strike it out and compel the defendants to take their plea on the amended charge.
Count one of the charge alleges that the three defendants conspired between 2017 and 2019 to commit criminal breach of trust, contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code. Count three accuses El‑Nafaty of dishonestly misappropriating N89,871,225 transferred from National Assembly accounts into a personal account in SunTrust Bank, an offence contrary to Section 311 of the Penal Code. Count 10 alleges that El‑Nafaty made false receipts from a company called Fazh Integrated Services Ltd, purporting them to be genuine, contrary to Section 362 of the Penal Code.
The first defendant also indicated that she intended to file a similar preliminary objection. Justice Zubairu directed that she should do so within 48 hours. He also ordered the prosecution to take a date to respond appropriately to the preliminary objections in the interest of justice. The judge then adjourned the matter until September 23, 2026, for the hearing of the preliminary objections.
The EFCC’s amended charge contains 23 counts, with several counts also involving criminal breach of trust, forgery of documents, and illegal conversion of public funds. The commission has accused the three senior officials of exploiting their positions to siphon money from the National Assembly’s overhead and general services accounts. Some of the funds were allegedly transferred to private accounts and companies linked to the defendants.
The EFCC’s investigation into the National Assembly’s financial management dates back to 2021, when a whistle‑blower report exposed irregularities in training and welfare funds, procurement contracts, and the use of special intervention funds. Several senior legislative aides and directors have been questioned over the years, but this is one of the most high‑profile cases to reach the stage of re-arraignment.
The defence, through its objection, appears to be challenging the validity of the amended charge on the grounds that some of the counts were previously dismissed by the same court. The prosecution, however, insists that the amended charge is competent and that the defendants must face trial.
As of Tuesday, June 9, no further comments have been made by the National Assembly leadership on the case. The anti‑graft agency has remained tight‑lipped, focusing instead on preparing its response to the preliminary objections.
With the adjournment now set for late September, the re-arraignment of the three senior officials will not happen before the rainy season ends. For the EFCC, the delay is an unwelcome hurdle. For the defendants, it is a tactical victory that keeps them out of the dock – at least for now.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com ✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments