Alleged $1.043m fraud: Fred Ajudua’s trial adjourned indefinitely
Trial of Fred Ajudua Adjourned Indefinitely in $1 Million Fraud Case
The Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos, has indefinitely adjourned the trial of Fred Ajudua, who is facing allegations of defrauding a Palestinian national, Zad Abu Zalaf, of $1,043,000. The case was brought before Justice Mojisola Dada.
Ajudua has been accused of perpetrating the fraud under false pretenses, with the charges dating back to 2005. The trial has been marked by numerous delays attributed to legal technicalities utilized by Ajudua’s defense team.
Originally assigned to Justice M.O. Obadina, the case has since been moved among several justices, including Justices J.E. Oyefeso and M.A. Dada, before Ajudua was formally arraigned on June 4, 2018. After being denied bail by Justice Dada, Ajudua succeeded in obtaining bail from the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal on September 10, 2018. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) later appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, questioning the transfer of the case to a new judge for retrial.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EFCC, mandating that the case return to Justice Dada for expeditious resolution.
During Monday’s proceedings, Ajudua’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, informed the court of a recent judgment from the Court of Appeal dated January 30, 2026. Ojo argued that the appellate ruling granted bail to Ajudua and directed that the case be reassigned to a different court for retrial, asserting that the current court lacked jurisdiction.
“Until that judgment is set aside, the court must recognize it,” Ojo stated.
In response, prosecuting counsel S.K. Atteh contended that the Court of Appeal’s judgment did not include any order for the case to be transferred. Atteh noted that Ajudua’s legal team has filed a motion seeking clarification on this issue, which remains pending.
Following the arguments from both sides, Justice Dada adjourned the trial indefinitely, leaving future proceedings contingent on the reassignment and interpretation of the appellate ruling.
