Defence counsel, Joe Agi, apologised to the court over the aborted proceedings, explaining that the defendants could not appear because the arraignment notice reached them on short notice.
He assured the court that the defendants would be present on the new date fixed for April 1.
However, Chile Okoroma, prosecution counsel, expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of the defendants, insisting they were properly served with the arraignment notice well ahead of time.
Okoroma also informed the court that the prosecution had written to John Tsoho, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, requesting that Ijeoma Ojukwu, the initial trial judge, who has since been transferred to Calabar in Cross River State, be reassigned to Abuja to continue handling the case.
Lifu, however, noted that the request was an administrative matter to be decided by the Chief Judge and subsequently fixed April 1 for the defendants’ fresh arraignment.
According to a statement by the anti-graft agency, the case dates back to 2015 when the EFCC first charged Lamido and the other defendants before Ojukwu at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
It revealed that during the trial, the prosecution called about 17 witnesses before closing its case.
“The defendants then filed a no-case submission, arguing that the EFCC had failed to present sufficient evidence requiring them to enter a defence.
“In November 2022, Ojukwu dismissed the application and ordered the defendants to open their defence. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendants approached the Court of Appeal.
“In July 2023, the appellate court upheld their no-case submission and discharged them, ruling that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter since the alleged offences occurred in Jigawa State”, it recalled.
The EFCC subsequently challenged the decision at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on January 16, 2026, a five-member panel of the apex court led by Abubakar Umar set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, holding that the defendants have a case to answer.
The Supreme Court ordered that the matter be returned to the Federal High Court for continuation of trial.