By SCM News Reporter I Monday, Oct. 12, 2026
IKEJA, Lagos – In an alarming expose of institutional evasion and systemic failure in Nigeria’s financial sector, an Ikeja Special Offences Court on Monday ordered substituted service on financial giant United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc and three other co-defendants over an alleged N4.29 billion foreign exchange (forex) fraud.
The order follows the persistent failure of the defendants to appear before the court to face criminal charges bordering on illegal forex trading, concealment of proceeds of unlawful activities, retention of criminal funds, and money laundering brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Charged alongside UBA are Muyiwa Akinyemi, Amangbo Eziashi-Stephen, Gesos Global Service Ltd., and Fedat Global Ltd.
According to the four-count charge filed by the anti-graft agency, the defendants allegedly conspired between September 14, 2022, and March 20, 2023, to illicitly trade foreign currencies at rates well above the official limits prescribed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
The prosecution alleges that the proceeds running into billions of naira from these unlawful forex transactions were subsequently retained, concealed, and laundered through corporate vehicles and banking channels—a move that highlights the ongoing battle against corporate greed and currency manipulation in Nigeria’s fragile economy.
The arraignment of the defendants had previously stalled on June 3 due to their blatant failure to show up in court. With the defendants continuing to play truant, the prosecution was compelled to seek an alternative legal mechanism to ensure justice is not derailed.
At Monday’s proceedings, EFCC counsel, Mr. Temitope Banjo, moved an ex-parte motion praying the court for permission to serve the defendants through substituted means after direct service was stymied by their absence.
Prosecution counsel urged the court to allow the agency to paste the charge sheet and accompanying court processes at conspicuous locations, including UBA House located at 57 Marina Street, Lagos Island, or any other address linked to the commission’s investigation.
Court Orders Substituted Service
Delivering his ruling, presiding judge Justice Rahman Oshodi condemned the evasion tactic and agreed that pasting the charges at the defendants’ known business address would satisfy the requirement of bringing the criminal proceedings to their attention.
“I have considered the supporting affidavit and am satisfied that the first proposed mode of service—pasting the documents in a conspicuous place at the address of the first, second, and third defendants—provides reasonable assurance that the proceedings will come to their attention,” Justice Oshodi held.
“Accordingly, I grant permission for the prosecution to serve the charge and accompanying processes by pasting them in a conspicuous place at the address of the first, second, and third defendants, known as 19 Nnebue House, 57 Marina, Festac Island, Lagos, or at any other address known to the complainant/applicant,” the judge added.
Justice Oshodi emphasized that under Section 88 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, service executed via this method is legally recognized as valid and due service.
However, the court declined a secondary prayer by the EFCC to serve the affected defendants through legal representation.
Striking out the secondary prayer, Justice Oshodi noted: “Relief number two, which seeks service on counsel for the first to third defendants, remains obscure and is struck out.”
Following the order, Justice Oshodi adjourned the case until October 22 for formal arraignment, directing the prosecution to file proof-of-service affidavits prior to the next hearing.
“I adjourn the matter, due to the defendants’ absence, to Oct. 22 and the prosecution is to file affidavits before the next scheduled adjourned date,” Justice Oshodi ruled.
As public outrage mounts over institutional involvement in foreign exchange malpractices, all eyes now turn to the October 22 proceedings to see whether UBA and its co-defendants will finally bow to the rule of law or continue their game of legal hide-and-seek.
