Federal High Court Judge Akintayo Aluko has withdrawn from a high-profile $42.5 million rice import fraud trial following a petition that accused him of misconduct and bias. The judge delivered his ruling on May 24, declaring his recusal from the case. The certified true copy of the ruling was shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Friday.
Case Background
The case, marked FHC/L/562C/22, involves the federal government charging five defendants with fraud through the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Federal Ministry of Justice. The defendants are 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, Prince Seriki.
The nominal complainant, whose petition initiated the charges, had I.A. Akinteye in court to maintain a watching brief. Additionally, U.N. Enyi appeared on behalf of Standard Chartered Bank, a third party in the proceedings. The case stems from disputed foreign exchange transactions linked to rice importation.
Proceedings and Petition
During the proceedings, the defense lawyer informed the court that the prosecution lawyer had missed his flight and could not attend. He also noted pending applications and requested a hearing date. Attention then shifted to a letter dated April 16, submitted through the registrar. The letter, written in the name of the law firm Sofunde, Osakwe, Ogundipe & Belgore, was signed by an unidentified person with no name indicated. Attached was a petition dated March 2, addressed to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
Mr. Aluko stated he had read the petition, which accused him of gross misconduct and bias arising from proceedings on October 23, 2025. The complaint challenged the court's decision to allow Mr. Akinteye, holding a watching brief for the nominal complainant, to inform the court that the prosecution lawyer was absent due to attending proceedings at the Court of Appeal, and to subsequently grant an adjournment. The petition also cited the Court of Appeal decision in Adio v. FRN (2019) LPELR-46793 (CA), often referenced in disputes over the limits of participation by counsel holding watching briefs in criminal proceedings.
Judge's Response
Mr. Aluko noted that the record of proceedings showed that on that date, both prosecution and defense lawyers were absent, with only a lawyer representing two respondent banks and the watching brief lawyer present. According to him, the watching brief lawyer merely informed the court, with permission, that the prosecution lawyer had called that morning to say he had been served with a hearing notice from the Court of Appeal and would not attend, requesting a new date. The judge explained he could not see how this procedural step amounted to gross misconduct as alleged.
He also observed that the petitioner, Babajide Ogundipe, acting on behalf of the law firm, had never appeared before him in the case. Mr. Aluko further noted that the defendants had consistently failed to appear in court, with the matter coming up more than 12 times without their presence. He described the petition as one capable of delaying proceedings rather than advancing the administration of justice, citing Rule 30 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, which prohibits lawyers from obstructing or delaying proceedings.
Legal Clarification and Recusal
The judge clarified the reliance on Adio v. FRN (2019), explaining that the decision does not prohibit a counsel holding a watching brief from conveying information to the court, but only disapproves of filing formal processes without leave of court. Although he dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated, Mr. Aluko said he would step aside to avoid any perception of bias. Recusal, he noted, is guided by the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, particularly where allegations, however unfounded, raise questions of perception.
“I do not have any personal interest in this case or in any of the over 1,000 matters in my docket,” he ruled on May 25. He added that the present case would not be an exception. He thereafter recused himself and directed that the case file be forwarded to the Administrative Judge for reassignment to another judge.
