The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) revealed on Thursday that Cletus Ibeto, Chairman of Ibeto Energy Development Company, has repaid N2.250 billion to the Commission.
This information was disclosed by EFCC’s lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Rotimi Jacobs, during the ongoing trial of Ibeto and his companies Ibeto Energy Development Company and Odoh Holdings Ltd—over an alleged N4.8 billion fraud.
The EFCC has brought a 10-count charge against Ibeto, including conspiracy, fraud, forgery, and the fraudulent use of documents.
However, Ibeto’s arraignment has been repeatedly delayed, with at least seven court dates missed due to his nonappearance, though he has been represented by his legal team.
At the recent court proceedings, Jacobs expressed frustration over Ibeto’s inconsistent cooperation. While Ibeto has avoided court appearances, he has engaged with the EFCC office to negotiate the repayment of the alleged fraud amount.
“We need to know what their plans are. Are they planning to continue with the litigation, or do they want to sit with the prosecution and complainant to negotiate an out-of-court settlement?” Jacobs questioned.
He highlighted the dilemma faced by the EFCC, as Ibeto’s partial repayment could either serve as evidence in the trial or indicate his willingness to settle the matter outside the courtroom.
Defence counsel Adebayo Oshodi did not directly address the EFCC’s claims. Instead, he requested the court’s permission to relist an application challenging the court’s territorial jurisdiction, which he had previously withdrawn.
Jacobs opposed this request, arguing that once the application was withdrawn and struck out, it could not be reinstated.
Justice Oyindamola Ogala concurred with Jacobs, noting that the defence had voluntarily withdrawn the application, precluding its relisting.
She also criticized Ibeto’s conduct, emphasizing the contradiction between his failure to appear in court and his engagement with the EFCC for repayment negotiations.
Justice Ogala refrained from commenting on the potential for an out-of-court settlement, stating her focus remains solely on the case before her.
After being informed that an appeal challenging the court’s jurisdiction is pending before the Court of Appeal, she adjourned the case to October 24 for further hearing.
