https://earlyreportnews.com/court-warns-against-delay-in-momphas-n6bn-money-laundering-trial/

Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos, on Monday cautioned against what she described as delay tactics in the ongoing alleged N6 billion money laundering trial of Ismaila Mustapha, popularly known as Mompha.

Mustapha and his firm, Ismalob Global Investment Limited, are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Lagos Zonal Directorate 1, Ikoyi, on an eight-count charge bordering on conspiracy to launder funds obtained through unlawful activities, retention of proceeds of criminal conduct, failure to disclose assets and possession of documents containing false pretences.

The defendants were arraigned on January 12, 2022. One of the charges alleges that Mustapha, alongside one Ahmadu Mohammed (at large) and his company, conspired in 2016 to conduct financial transactions totalling N5,998,884,653.18 with the intent of promoting unlawful activities, including obtaining by false pretence.

Mustapha pleaded not guilty, prompting a full trial.

During proceedings, the prosecution, led by S.I. Suleiman, called five witnesses and tendered documentary evidence, after which it closed its case. The defence subsequently filed a no-case submission, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish a link between the defendants and the alleged offences.

In a ruling delivered on November 4, 2025, Justice Dada held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, dismissed the no-case submission and ordered the defendants to open their defence.

At Monday’s sitting, defence counsel Kolawole Salami informed the court that the defendants had filed an application seeking leave to appeal the ruling dismissing their no-case submission, contending that no prima facie case had been made out against them. He urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice.

The prosecution opposed the move, stating that the matter had been adjourned since 2025 for the defence to present its case and that bringing such an application at this stage was improper.

Justice Dada ruled that while the defendants had a constitutional right to appeal, the filing of an application would not halt proceedings. She directed the defence to proceed with its case.

However, defence counsel informed the court that his witness was unavailable, stating that the witness was unaware of the hearing date and was outside the court’s jurisdiction. He sought an adjournment to enable the witness to attend.

The judge granted the request but warned that the court would not tolerate further delays, describing the adjournment as a “last indulgence.”

The case was adjourned until April 28, 2026, for continuation of trial.