CourtRoom

The Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Gwarimpa, Abuja, has scheduled Thursday, December 18, to deliver its ruling on the bail application filed by former Minister of Labour and Employment, Chris Ngige, who is facing an eight-count ₦2.2 billion contract fraud charge instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

Justice Maryam Hassan fixed the date after counsel to the EFCC, Sylvanus Tahir, SAN, and defence counsel, Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, presented arguments for and against the bail request.

When the case came up for hearing on Monday, Tahir recalled that proceedings had been adjourned from Friday to Monday specifically for arguments on the bail application.

He explained that the court granted the adjournment to allow the prosecution, which was served with the bail motion on Friday morning, adequate time to examine the application and respond.

He, however, informed the court that the prosecution had since complied.

“The prosecution filed a counter-affidavit to the bail application today, December 15,” he said.

In response, lead defence counsel, Ikwueto, rose to move the bail application on behalf of the defendant.

In his submissions, he urged the court to grant bail, insisting that the former minister was not a flight risk, contrary to the prosecution’s assertions.

“The application was filed on December 11, 2025. It is seeking, my Lord, medical relief, which is bail. We rely on your Lordship to consider the application. My Lord, we have a further affidavit of seven paragraphs,” he said.

Addressing the prosecution’s counter-affidavit, Ikwueto stated: “My Lord, I can see that the prosecution has filed a counter-affidavit. I ask your Lordship for a little time to address paragraphs eight and nine of the counter-affidavit.

“Paragraphs eight and nine state that the defendant poses a flight risk and that no amount of sureties can prevent him from fleeing abroad and abandoning his trial.”

He argued that while the prosecution claimed the defendant breached an earlier administrative bail by failing to return his international passport after a medical trip abroad, documentary evidence showed that the passport was lost in London during the trip.

According to him, formal reports of the loss were made to the UK Home Office, the Nigerian High Commission in London, and authorities in Abuja.

He added that the EFCC did not state anywhere in its counter-affidavit that it investigated the alleged loss of the passport and found the claim to be untrue.

He further contended that documentary evidence outweighs sworn affidavits when both are placed side by side.

“Your Lordship knows that in our law, documents command a higher degree of acceptance than oral testimony in a sworn affidavit. Documents bear more authenticity than words from the vocal cords of man,” he said.

Ikwueto also described it as contradictory for the prosecution to allege that the defendant could flee the country when he no longer possessed an international passport.

“In this case, the issue is whether the defendant can flee. How? The defendant must have travel documents, and it is presently confirmed that he does not. I therefore urge your Lordship to be persuaded by the documents before you showing that the defendant lost his international passport and reported the loss to the High Commission in London.

“If the prosecution says the defendant is a flight risk and can leave the country at will while in possession of his travel documents, I submit that this statement, even though contained in an affidavit, is false.

“If this affidavit says the defendant has his international passport, and there is a report at the High Commission in London that he lost it, how will he pose a flight risk? How will he travel? There is no record that he has obtained a new passport from the Immigration Service,” he argued.

He further maintained that if the defendant were truly a flight risk, he would not have returned to Nigeria after being granted administrative bail.

“The defendant is not a flight risk and has no capacity to leave this country now, despite being a former governor. If he were a flight risk, when he was given his passport in September, he would not have returned.

“He had to obtain an emergency travel certificate from the Nigerian High Commission in London to return. Your Lordship knows that this certificate is a one-off document. It cannot be used to travel out of Nigeria; it is only for entry and expires after use. There is no denial that this was how the defendant returned, and the certificate was stamped,” he said.

Ikwueto also argued that the defendant is not a criminal and has no prior criminal history aside from the current charge.

“It is impossible for the defendant to commit the offence again. He is no longer a minister and may not be one in the near future. There is no likelihood that he will commit the offence again if granted bail.

“The defendant has held many positions in this country. He is being charged in respect of his last position, but apart from this charge, he has no criminal record,” he said.

He further urged the court to consider the defendant’s health, noting that he had been unable to access necessary medical treatment due to the loss of his passport, which compelled him to return to Nigeria instead of travelling onward to the United States.

“He has to attend to his deteriorating health conditions, especially his sight. Yesterday, when I was with him, every other minute, he had to excuse himself to administer eye drops. Your Lordship may also take into account his age and health condition. The defendant needs to be in good health to stand this trial,” he said.

“We urge your Lordship to exercise your discretion. Your Lordship may impose whatever terms you deem fit. The defendant is not charged with a capital offence or an offence that is not bailable. We urge your Lordship to grant bail on favourable terms,” he added.

Opposing the application, the EFCC urged the court to deny bail, arguing that the former minister had breached the conditions attached to an earlier administrative bail.

“My Lord, in stiff opposition to the bail application, the prosecution filed a counter-affidavit and a written address in opposition to the defendant’s written address.

“We urge this honourable court to refuse the application,” Tahir said.

He noted that although the defendant undertook to return his passport by November 19, he failed to do so.

“From the travel pass, the defendant returned on November 14, but the document was never forwarded to the EFCC. We only saw it here. He did not present himself to the EFCC to report his return, nor did he return his travel document as undertaken,” Tahir said.

He argued that even though the defendant claimed his passport was lost in London, he returned to Nigeria to swear an affidavit of loss rather than doing so in the United Kingdom.

“The right thing would have been to depose to an affidavit of loss in the UK, not present one from a court in Maitama. The defendant is in gross breach of the administrative bail conditions,” he said.

Tahir further argued that the bail application was an attempt by the defendant to continue benefiting from the administrative bail earlier granted by the EFCC, which he had already forfeited.

He cited Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, submitting that bail may be refused where a defendant frustrates the objectives of the criminal justice system.

“If the defendant claims to have lost his passport on November 10 in the UK, returned on November 14, and then stayed away until authorities came for him, has he not undermined the bail system?” he asked.

He added that the defendant failed to voluntarily report to the EFCC upon his return.

“He did not come to explain, ‘This is what happened.’ No exhibits were attached, and he did not submit himself to the EFCC. We urge the court to refuse the bail application and grant an accelerated hearing of the trial,” he said.

Responding, defence counsel argued that a lost foreign passport should be reported to the police, while EFCC counsel agreed but maintained that such a report should be made in the jurisdiction where the loss occurred, namely London, and not Nigeria.

After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Hassan adjourned the case to December 18 for ruling on the bail application.