In an effort to clear his name, Dr. Bisi Onasanya, the former Group Managing Director of First Bank of Nigeria, appeared before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday, 13 February 2025, to defend himself against allegations of fraud connected to a commercial loan transaction that occurred during his tenure at the bank.
Onasanya, who was one of the most prominent bankers in the country, is facing serious allegations alongside other key figures: Oba Otudeko, the former Chairman of First Bank, Soji Akintayo, a Director at Honeywell Group, and Anchorage Leisure Limited, a company accused in the fraud case. The accused have all denied the charges, which involve a commercial loan that allegedly involved fraudulent transactions.
Onasanya’s appearance in court came after an earlier promise by his legal team to ensure his appearance. His lead counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), had confirmed in January 2025 that Onasanya would fully cooperate with the court’s proceedings.
In his defence, Olasupo Shashore (SAN), another lawyer representing Onasanya, stated that while the former banker was fully committed to proving his innocence, he agreed with Otudeko’s legal team on one important point: the court should first hear a preliminary application challenging its jurisdiction over the case. Shashore urged the court to resolve this matter before proceeding to the main issues.
One of the key points raised by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who represents Otudeko, is that the case is not a criminal matter but a civil one, based on the bank-customer relationship. Olanipekun argued that the transaction in question should be treated as a commercial dispute rather than criminal fraud.
On the other hand, Ade Adedeji (SAN), counsel for Anchorage Leisure Limited, criticized the actions of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), accusing the agency of harassment and intimidation of the defendants. He pointed out that the loan, which is the subject of the prosecution, had been fully repaid back in 2017, years before the EFCC began its investigation. According to Adedeji, the case had been resolved long ago, and the continued pursuit of the matter was a form of “witch-hunting.”
“The loan, which is the subject of prosecution, has long been repaid since 2017, when the EFCC initially waded into the matter. There is clear evidence of repayment available. The continued pursuit of this case by the EFCC amounts to nothing but witch-hunting, intimidation, and harassment of the defendants,” said Adedeji.
He went on to say that the EFCC had not responded to their preliminary objection, which requested that the court either quash the charges or decline jurisdiction over the case, citing abuse of judicial process and a lack of sufficient evidence.
On the other hand, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), the EFCC prosecutor, maintained that the allegations were based on a thorough investigation. He pointed out that the 13-count charge against the defendants was a result of detailed findings by the agency, and he insisted that there was sufficient evidence to justify the charges.
This back-and-forth between the defence and prosecution has led to a tense legal battle, with both sides offering contrasting perspectives on the case.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke adjourned the case to March 17, 2025, for a ruling on the matter of jurisdiction. The judge’s ruling will determine whether the case will proceed to trial or whether it will be dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction.
During the proceedings, Onasanya’s lawyer, Olumide-Fusika, requested that his client be allowed to return home in the meantime, highlighting that Onasanya had respected the judicial process by appearing in court as promised. Justice Aneke granted the request, allowing Onasanya to leave the court and return on the adjourned date for the next hearing.
In previous hearings, Onasanya’s legal team had strongly condemned what they referred to as a “media trial” orchestrated by the EFCC. According to Olumide-Fusika, the EFCC’s handling of the case had led to undue public speculation and negative media attention, which had unfairly affected Onasanya’s reputation.
Olumide-Fusika had expressed concerns about the way the case was being presented in the public eye, accusing the EFCC of making media statements that prejudiced the case before it had even been properly heard in court.
While Onasanya appeared in court, his co-defendant, Oba Otudeko, was unable to attend due to health reasons. Otudeko’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, provided an affidavit stating that Otudeko had travelled to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. The affidavit, which was supported by documentation, explained that Otudeko had travelled through the Muritala Mohammed International Airport in Lagos and was undergoing medical care abroad.
The allegations against high-profile figures in Nigeria’s banking sector, such as Onasanya and Otudeko, have raised questions about transparency, corporate governance, and accountability within the financial system. First Bank of Nigeria, one of the largest and oldest banks in the country, has been under scrutiny for its leadership and management decisions in recent years, with this case being one of the more prominent legal battles.
The case also highlights the role of regulatory agencies like the EFCC, which continue to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of financial crimes, including corruption and fraud, within Nigeria’s banking and corporate sectors. These cases often attract widespread media attention, given the significant financial stakes involved.
