A Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos, has dismissed no-case submissions filed by Alhaji Usman Abubakar and Young Alhaji Foundation, ordering both defendants to open their defence in a case involving the alleged fraudulent conversion of ₦950 million belonging to Ano Farms Limited.
Justice Mojisola Dada ruled on Thursday that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had established a prima facie case through sufficient oral and documentary evidence linking the defendants to the alleged offences.
Abubakar and his foundation face a five-count charge bordering on obtaining money by false pretence and stealing.
The EFCC told the court that the case stemmed from a September 2022 petition by Prag Attorneys and Consultants on behalf of Ano Farms, which alleged that the defendants fraudulently collected ₦950 million under the guise of facilitating a foreign exchange transaction.
According to the prosecution, Ano Farms needed foreign currency to import agricultural commodities and was introduced to a Lebanese national, Dr. Abu Omer Fawzi, to purchase $1.25 million at an agreed rate of ₦760 to the dollar. Dr. Fawzi directed the company to transfer the naira equivalent into Young Alhaji Foundation’s First Bank account — a transfer that was duly completed, but the agreed foreign exchange was never delivered.
EFCC counsel Bilkisu Buhari-Bala told the court that WhatsApp conversations admitted in evidence confirmed communications between Ano Farms and Dr. Fawzi over the deal, while bank records showed the ₦950 million was credited to the foundation’s account. She added that instead of delivering the foreign exchange, the defendants attempted to withdraw the funds even after a court order had frozen the account.
The prosecution also highlighted contradictions in the defendants’ explanations — initially denying knowledge of the transfer, then claiming the funds were part payment of an alleged $12 million debt owed to Abubakar by a third party.
Managing Director of Ano Farms, Adeniyi Oyewole, had testified earlier that when the company sought to recover its money, the defendants first claimed the payment was for property — a claim he denied — before later offering the debt repayment explanation.
Justice Dada agreed with the prosecution that the contradictions, combined with the documentary evidence, were sufficient to require the defendants to answer the charges.
The case has been adjourned for commencement of defence.
READ ALSO:
