The planned arraignment of businessman Austin Ugochukwu Albert and a finance officer over the alleged forgery and diversion of ₦460.75 million was stalled before the Federal High Court in Lagos following Albert’s absence from court.
The case, filed as Inspector-General of Police v. Austin Ugochukwu Albert and Others, is being prosecuted before Justice I.A. Kala by G.T. Nev of the Directorate of Legal Services, Nigeria Police Force Headquarters, Abuja.
Albert, popularly known as Austin Albert, is a Nigerian businessman with interests in real estate and the Chief Executive Officer of Dubai-based Loft & Keys Properties LLC.
He is charged alongside Jinadu Musbau Olalekan, who was described as the Head of Finance of a Lagos-based advisory company jointly owned by Albert and a female business partner serving as the company’s Chief Executive Officer.
According to the amended charge, Albert and Olalekan allegedly conspired to transfer ₦460,750,000 from the company’s account with Globus Bank Plc on March 6, 2026, without the knowledge or authorisation of the female CEO.
The prosecution alleged that the money was transferred to an account belonging to New Power Energy and Logistics Services.
It further alleged that the defendants forged the CEO’s signature to authorise the transfer.
The allegations were brought under provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the Criminal Code Act.
When the case was called, Albert was absent from the courtroom.
His counsel, Abdul-Hakeem Adio, informed the court that the businessman had recently undergone major surgery in Dubai and was consequently unable to attend the proceedings.
However, the defence did not present a medical report or other documentary evidence to support the explanation.
Prosecuting counsel Nev drew the court’s attention to what he described as a change in the defence’s account of Albert’s absence.
He said that at the previous sitting, the court had merely been informed that the defendant was outside Nigeria, without any reference to illness or surgery.
The prosecutor argued that the subsequent claim of major surgery, unsupported by medical documents, raised concerns that required clarification.
Justice Kala, however, declined to proceed with the arraignment in Albert’s absence, citing the need to protect the defendant’s right to a fair hearing.
The judge adjourned the matter until October 5, 2026, for arraignment and directed that Albert and Olalekan be present in court on the new date.
One of the individuals initially named in the case, Ugumanim Okputu Joana Agwu, an executive assistant to Albert, had faced a separate allegation of assault.
The prosecution subsequently withdrew the assault count after concluding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to determine it alongside the alleged financial offences.
The amended charge therefore retains Albert and Olalekan as the defendants expected to take their pleas when proceedings resume.
A delegation from the International Federation of Women Lawyers, Nigeria, was present in court to observe the proceedings.
The FIDA delegation was led by Ogechi Abu and included Phil Nneji, Chioma Porom and Kemi Ogunnaike.
Oluniyi Adediji of J-K Gadzama LLP also appeared on a watching brief for the nominal complainant.
Speaking after the proceedings, Abu said FIDA’s presence was connected to its mandate to protect women’s rights, noting that the nominal complainant in the case is a woman.
She also questioned the differing explanations given for Albert’s absence.
“At the last adjourned date, there was no mention of any medical indisposition,” she said.
“Today, we are hearing of major surgery, yet without a medical report to show the nature of it to the court.”
Abu said the organisation would continue to monitor the proceedings and commended the court for declining to proceed with the arraignment in the principal defendant’s absence.
Responding, Adio rejected any suggestion that the case involved violence against women, arguing that the allegations remaining before the court principally concerned forgery and the disputed transfer of funds.
“If you look at the entire charge sheet, the common thread is forgery,” he said.
“This matter has nothing to do with violence against a woman.”
