TDThe long-running trial of Nigerian businessman Fred Ajudua, accused of defrauding a Palestinian national of $1,043,000, has once again been thrown into uncertainty, as Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court, Ikeja, adjourned the matter indefinitely (sine die).
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2005, when Ajudua was first charged before Justice M.O. Obadina of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja.
He allegedly defrauded Zad Abu Zalaf of over $1 million under false pretences.
The charge has since become one of the most enduring fraud prosecutions in Nigeria’s judicial history.
Over the years, the trial has been plagued by delays, adjournments, and jurisdictional disputes, often attributed to legal technicalities employed by the defence.
The matter was reassigned multiple times—from Justice Obadina to Justice J.E. Oyefeso, and eventually to Justice Dada, who formally arraigned Ajudua on June 4, 2018.
Following the denial of bail by Justice Dada, Ajudua appealed to the Court of Appeal, which granted him bail on September 10, 2018.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) challenged this ruling at the Supreme Court.
The apex court sided with the prosecution and ordered that the case continue before Justice Dada to ensure a speedy trial.
Latest Developments
At Monday’s proceedings, defence counsel Olalekan Ojo (SAN) informed the court that a Court of Appeal judgment delivered on January 30, 2026, had once again granted bail to Ajudua.
The judge directed that the substantive suit be remitted to another judge to commence afresh (de novo).
Ojo argued that Justice Dada no longer had jurisdiction over the matter, stressing that until the appellate judgment is overturned, the court must act on it.
He revealed that a letter had already been sent to the Chief Judge of Lagos State requesting reassignment of the case.
The defence cited the precedent of Ajudua v. FRN (2019), where the Court of Appeal similarly interpreted case transfers to mean a fresh trial before a new judge.
Prosecution’s Position
Prosecuting counsel S.K. Atteh countered that while the Court of Appeal granted bail, it did not explicitly order the case to be transferred.
He noted that the defence had filed a motion at the appellate court seeking clarification of the judgment.
The judgment appeared to contradict the earlier Supreme Court ruling that the matter should remain with Justice Dada.
Atteh emphasized that the EFCC remains committed to pursuing the case, but the conflicting rulings have created a legal stalemate.
Adjournment Sine Die
Justice Dada, faced with the jurisdictional dispute and pending appeals, adjourned the matter indefinitely (sine die).
This effectively halts proceedings until higher courts resolve the contradictions between the appellate and Supreme Court decisions.
Outlook and Implications
The indefinite adjournment prolongs one of Nigeria’s most protracted fraud trials, now spanning over two decades.
Legal observers say the case underscores systemic challenges in Nigeria’s judiciary, where conflicting rulings, procedural delays, and technical manoeuvres often stall high-profile prosecutions.
For the EFCC, the adjournment represents another setback in its mission to secure convictions in major fraud cases.
It raises questions about the effectiveness of Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework.
For Ajudua, it extends a legal battle that has defined much of his public life, leaving the alleged victim, Zad Abu Zalaf, without closure.
The case has become emblematic of the slow pace of justice in Nigeria.
It highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure that high-profile financial crimes are prosecuted efficiently and transparently.
