The trial of one Kolawole Adedayo Erinle, alongside his firm, Rinde-Remdex Nigeria Limited, for an alleged $1.4m fraud before Justice R.A. Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos could not continue again today, February 3, 2023, due to the absence of the counsel for the second defendant.
Erinle, who is standing trial on a three-count charge bordering on conspiracy, retention of proceeds of criminal conduct and obtaining money under false pretence to the tune of $1,410,000 (One Million Four Hundred and Ten Thousand United States Dollars), was earlier arraigned before Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos, on March 11, 2022.
However, the trial could not be concluded before the retirement of Justice Taiwo, thereby prompting the reassignment of the case to Justice Oshodi.
The defendant is alleged to have defrauded the Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences (KCUMB) in the United States of about $1,412,509 USD.
One of the counts reads: "Kolawole Adedayo Erinle and Edward Dada (still at large), sometime in 2019, at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, conspired to falsely represent yourselves as J.E. Dunn, a local construction company in America, with intent to gain monetary advantage in the sum of $1,410,000 (One Million Four-Hundred and Ten Thousand United States Dollars) by creating a fake domain name jedunn.org and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 8 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act No 14, 2006."
Another count reads: "Kolawole Adedayo Erinle, Rinde-Remdex Nigeria Limited and Edward Dada (still at large), on or about the 3rd day of May 2019, at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, retain the control of $1,410,000 (One Million Four Hundred and Ten Thousand United States Dollars) in your Access Bank account, which sum you knew to be proceeds of various internet and cybercrime."
He pleaded "not guilty" to the charges when he was arraigned before Justice Oshodi on October 28, 2022.
At today’s proceedings, the prosecution counsel, T.J. Banjo, informed the court that the prosecution had two witnesses, who travelled from Abuja and Osun State respectively to testify.
Though the counsel for the first defendant, Lawal Pedro, SAN was present in court, counsel for the second defendant, Olayinka Farounbi, was, again, absent.
When the court asked the first defendant if he would want his counsel, Pedro, to also represent the second defendant, since he is the alter ego of the company, he said “No".
The Judge had, at the last sitting on December 5, 2022, adjourned till today, (February 3, 2023), due to the absence of Farounbi, who sent in a letter to the court that he was "sick and hospitalised".
Farounbi, who did not send any representative to stand in for him at today’s sitting, was said to be recuperating, having just been discharged from the hospital.
In view of this, the prosecution counsel, who described the development as "a calculated attempt and ploy to delay the trial", noted that the defendant had “ample time” to have got a new counsel.
He said: "At the last sitting, counsel for the second defendant wrote to the court on grounds of ill-health, and that was last year.
"The defendant has got ample time to get a new counsel, knowing full well that the lawyer of his company is not feeling well.
"The first defendant is the mind and the brains behind the second defendant and he is represented here in court today."
He further noted that the two witnesses, who came outside of the jurisdiction, were also present at the last sitting, but the matter could not go on due to the absence of the counsel to the second defendant.
He, therefore, urged the court to revoke the bail of the defendant, noting that such would ensure that the second defendant is fully represented at the next proceeding.
Responding, Pedro, noted that he only knew the first defendant and not the second defendant.
He further told the court that the information he had was that the counsel for the second defendant had been discharged from hospital, but currently recuperating.
After listening to both parties, the Judge held that the court would grant the adjournment at the instance of the second defendant, "in the interest of justice", stressing that the reason that resulted in the absence of the counsel was on grounds of ill-health.
The court also refused the application to revoke the bail of the first defendant.
"But there must be an end to litigation," the Judge further held.
Justice Oshodi adjourned till February 7, 9 and 10, 2023, and also held that "there shall be no further adjournments at the instance of the second defendant.
Media & Publicity
03/02/2023