DistantNews
Support us
Judge recuses withdraws from $42.5 million fraud trial
๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Nigeria /Crime & Justice

Judge recuses withdraws from $42.5 million fraud trial

From Premium Times · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources Outcome reported
  • A judge in Lagos, Nigeria, has withdrawn from a $42.5 million rice import fraud trial.
  • The withdrawal follows a petition accusing the judge of misconduct and bias.
  • The trial involves five defendants charged with fraud related to disputed foreign exchange transactions for rice importation.

A judge at the Federal High Court in Lagos, Akintayo Aluko, has recused himself from presiding over a $42.5 million fraud trial concerning rice imports. The decision came after a petition was filed, accusing the judge of misconduct and bias.

In his ruling on May 24, Justice Aluko declared his withdrawal from the case, identified as FHC/L/562C/22. The federal government, through the Department of Public Prosecutions, had charged five defendants: Prem Garg, Devashish Garg, Marcus Wade, Agrico Agbe Limited, and Wilben Trade Limited (Dubai). All defendants were absent from the May 25 proceedings, though three were represented by their lawyer.

The case originates from disputed foreign exchange transactions linked to rice importation. During the proceedings, the defense lawyer indicated that the prosecution lawyer was unable to attend due to a missed flight and requested a new date for hearing pending applications.

Attention then turned to a letter and a petition submitted to the court. The petition, dated March 2, accused Justice Aluko of gross misconduct and bias stemming from proceedings on October 23, 2025. Specifically, it challenged the court's decision to allow a lawyer holding a watching brief for the nominal complainant to inform the court of the prosecution lawyer's absence and subsequently grant an adjournment.

Justice Aluko, however, stated that court records showed both prosecution and defense lawyers were absent on that date. He noted that the watching brief lawyer had merely informed the court, with permission, that the prosecution lawyer was attending proceedings at the Court of Appeal and requested a new date. The judge found it unclear how this procedural step constituted gross misconduct as alleged.

DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Premium Times. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.