A former Managing Director of the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC), Fidet Edetanle, has urged the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja to dismiss the criminal charges filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), labeling the case as an abuse of court process.
Background of the Case
Edetanle faces prosecution over an alleged fraud involving $385,000 and N165,438,000. He was arraigned before Justice Rahman Oshodi on February 24, 2026, on a seven-count charge that includes abuse of office, money laundering, and unlawful enrichment by a public official. He has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Defense Argument
At the resumed hearing, the defendant presented an application dated May 12, 2026, seeking to quash the charge. Lead defense counsel Adebowale Kamoru argued that the prosecution constitutes an abuse of court process because the issues in the current charge were already addressed in a final forfeiture order granted by a Federal High Court in Abuja. According to Kamoru, the EFCC, which initiated both the forfeiture proceedings and the criminal charge, relied on the same alleged offenses, assets, and bank accounts in both cases. He stated, “The complainant in the Abuja suit is the same as in this charge, and the owner of the funds, said to be proceeds of crime and subject of the forfeiture order, is the same defendant.” He further submitted that the bank accounts investigated by the EFCC and affected by the forfeiture order are the same ones forming the basis of the criminal trial. The lawyer maintained that the findings and consequences of the current charge had effectively been determined in the Abuja proceedings, which culminated in a forfeiture order on March 9, 2026.
EFCC's Response
EFCC counsel Abass Muhammed opposed the application, urging the court to dismiss it for lacking merit. He argued that the forfeiture proceedings were non-conviction-based and civil in nature, under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006. According to Muhammed, the forfeiture action targeted assets reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, not the defendant personally. “The forfeiture proceedings are not in any way a finding of guilt against the defendant. The instant criminal charge is against him personally,” he said. He further submitted that a civil forfeiture proceeding, being an action in rem, can either precede or coexist with a criminal prosecution without constituting an abuse of court process, even when both matters relate to the same assets.
Court Adjournment
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter to July 3, 2026, for a ruling on the defendant's application.
