In 2018, the Police initiated legal proceedings by filing an 11-count charge against Barrister Everistus Ugwuowo, aged 39, along with three more individuals. The charges were based on allegations of document forgery related to a property situated in Gwarinpa, Abuja. The report to the police on these activities was made by Mrs. Grace Audu.
The additional individuals under investigation include Umar Adamu, aged 41, Usman Audu, aged 49, and Adole Christopher, aged 29. It has been alleged that they conspired to create a counterfeit "Deed of Assignment" pertaining to the property.
According to reports, the primary suspect and his associates allegedly engaged in the unauthorized sale of a property located at House 11, 662 Road, Gwarinpa 2 Estate, Abuja. This property is registered under the ownership of Mr. Grema Umar.
The accused were said to have counterfeited several documents, including an Offer letter, a document labeled as No. FHA/OCE/GWA 2 OWU C for the property, an Irrevocable Power of Attorney, a letter of checking in of owner occupier supposedly signed by Grema Umar, and other invoices.
The defendants were alleged to have fraudulently obtained a sum of N29 million from their victim by falsely representing themselves as authorized sellers of the property. At the commencement of the trial, the defendants entered pleas of not guilty in relation to this offense.
Upon being requested to reimburse the funds obtained from the victim, who afterwards recognized the fraudulent nature of the transaction, the primary suspect (Ugwuowo) reportedly submitted a cheque that was deemed invalid.
The individuals in question were formally charged by law enforcement authorities with multiple criminal offenses, including forgery, conspiracy to conduct a felony, and acquiring money under false pretenses. These charges are in violation of section 8 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offenses Act of 2006.
According to reports, the individuals in question were alleged to have engaged in an act that is in violation of section 1(1) and subject to punishment under 1(3) of the Advance fee fraud and other related offences Act 2006, as well as 3(6), 1(2)(C) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act CAP M17, Law of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004.
One additional offense with which the suspects were charged is the act of issuing a dishonored cheque, which is in violation of section 1(1) of the Dishonored Cheque Act, CAP D11 LFN 2004.
During the subsequent hearing of the case, Justice Egwuatu Obiora deferred the proceedings until November 2nd in order to make a ruling on a preliminary objection that questions the court's power to preside over the case.
The legal representative for the second defendant, Mr. Ebuka Agwu, informed the court that an application has been submitted contesting the court's authority to preside over the case.
Agwu asserts that the police lack the requisite legal authority to initiate such a lawsuit in a court of law. Instead, it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General of theFederation to exercise such powers.
The individual substantiated their stance by referencing Sections 104–106 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA). Additionally, legal representatives for the first, third, and fourth defendants expressed their agreement with the provisions outlined in the ACJA.
During his testimony, the individual informed the court that a written submission had been submitted to substantiate his case regarding the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
The legal representative for the first defendant, Mr. Yomi Olokeogun, informed the court that his client, Ugwuowo, was unable to attend the proceedings due to hospitalization resulting from high blood pressure.
During the court proceedings, Olokeogun asserted that a medical report received from the hospital had been submitted to the court as evidentiary support for his client's actual condition.
The individual implored the court to exercise its discretionary powers in determining the appropriate course of action, given the absence of his client during the proceedings.
During the proceedings, the prosecution counsel made a request to the court to dismiss the medical report on the grounds that it did not originate from an officially recognized government hospital.
Furthermore, he implored the court to dismiss the preliminary objection, emphasizing the occurrence of superfluous adjournments throughout the duration of the trial.