The Lagos State Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja has arraigned the Chief Executive Officer of Chappal Energies, Ufoma Immanuel, on a two-count charge bordering on alleged conspiracy, theft and dishonest conversion of a Lexus vehicle valued at about ₦600 million, despite a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Justice Rahman Oshodi proceeded with the arraignment after rejecting an application by Immanuel’s counsel to defer his plea pending determination of the jurisdictional challenge. The defendant subsequently pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Immanuel, through his counsel, Oluseun Awonuga, SAN, had filed a preliminary objection asking the court to dismiss the charge, marked 28400C/26, on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of the criminal justice process and failed to disclose sufficient facts capable of establishing conspiracy and stealing.
The Police Special Fraud Unit alleged that Immanuel conspired with other persons said to be at large to steal a Lexus LA 600F SUV valued at approximately ₦600 million and thereafter dishonestly converted the vehicle, allegedly belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Limited, to his personal use.
According to the charge, the alleged offences were committed in Lagos on January 6 and January 12, 2026, while Immanuel was a suspended director of the company.
The jurisdictional dispute arose after the prosecution, led by Musa Usman, argued that Immanuel could not properly challenge the validity of the charge until after taking his plea.
The defence, however, maintained that the competence of the court to entertain the charge was a threshold issue that ought to be resolved before the arraignment proceeded.
In the preliminary objection filed on September 22, Immanuel alleged that the criminal proceedings were instigated by hostile interests within Chappal Energies as part of an ongoing dispute over the ownership, management and control of the company and its assets.
In a 56-paragraph affidavit and accompanying written address, the defence argued that neither the petition which triggered the police investigation nor the proof of evidence disclosed facts sufficient to establish the alleged offences of conspiracy or stealing.
The defence particularly attacked the conspiracy count, contending that the charge did not identify the persons with whom Immanuel allegedly conspired or disclose any agreement, meeting of minds or concerted arrangement capable of supporting the allegation.
His lawyers also argued that the original petition by the nominal complainant did not accuse Immanuel of stealing the vehicle and contended that the subsequent criminal charge therefore lacked a proper factual foundation.
The defence described the prosecution as an attempt to deploy the criminal justice system to gain an advantage in what it characterised as a corporate dispute and urged the court to apply principles laid down by the Supreme Court on abuse of court process in dismissing the charge.
Immanuel’s arraignment had earlier been scheduled for July 10 but did not proceed.
Justice Oshodi said the defendant, who was in the custody of the State Security Service, SSS, was not produced before the court on that date and was also not produced on September 14, 15 and 16.
Although Immanuel was eventually brought before the court on September 23, the arraignment was again challenged after his senior counsel sought to defer the proceedings pending the determination of the preliminary objection filed a day earlier.
The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that it had not been served with the motion and that an objection to the validity of a criminal charge could only be raised after the defendant had entered his plea.
Ruling on the application, Justice Oshodi held that Section 374(2) of the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice (Amendment) Law 2021 permits a defendant to challenge the validity of a charge after taking a plea and before judgment.
The judge therefore declined to allow the preliminary objection to further delay the arraignment.
He noted that the motion challenging the charge had only been filed the previous day and had not been served on the prosecution, adding that further postponement could result in the defendant remaining in custody for an open-ended period without being arraigned.
Justice Oshodi also referred to the Supreme Court decision cited in the proceedings as Guzia Mba2 v. FRN, in which proceedings were said to have been stalled for about 15 years by a challenge to a criminal charge, and stressed the need for a pragmatic approach to criminal trials.
The judge further relied on Sections 35(4) and 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution, noting that Immanuel had remained in custody without being called upon to plead to the charges against him.
According to the court, keeping the defendant in custody for a longer period without arraignment would not serve the interests of justice.
Justice Oshodi consequently refused the application to defer the arraignment and directed the court registrar to read the two counts to Immanuel.
The Chappal Energies CEO pleaded not guilty to both counts.
Following the plea, defence counsel Mobolaji Kuti asked the court for a short adjournment to enable the defence move Immanuel’s bail application.
The court subsequently remanded the defendant and adjourned the matter until October 2, 2026, for further proceedings.
The preliminary objection challenging the competence of the charge and the court’s jurisdiction has therefore not yet been finally determined.
Immanuel is also facing a separate criminal proceeding before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, following a charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on the basis of a petition by his business partner, Adebisi Adebutu.
... “Court Refuses To Delay Arraignment Over Jurisdictional Objection” — Chappal Energies CEO Pleads Not Guilty To Alleged ₦600m Vehicle Theft ... TheNigeriaLawyer.