The judge stepped from the case despite dismissing the bias allegations as unsubstantiated.
Federal High Court in Lagos, Akintayo Aluko, has withdrawn from a $42.5 million rice import fraud trial.
This followed a petition accusing him of misconduct and bias.
The judge gave his ruling on 24 May declaring his withdrawal from the trial.
The certified true copy of the ruling was shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Friday.
In the case marked FHC/L/562C/22, The federal government, through the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Federal Ministry of Justice, charged five defendants with fraud
They are Prem Garg, Devashish Garg, Marcus Wade, Agrico Agbe Limited and Wilben Trade Limited (Dubai).
All the defendants were absent from the 25 May proceedings, but three of them were represented by their lawyer Prince Seriki.
The nominal complainant, whose petition gave rise to the charges had I.A. Akinteye in court to keep a watching brief.
Also, U.N. Enyi appeared for Standard Chartered Bank, a third party in the proceedings.
The case stemmed from disputed foreign exchange transactions linked to rice importation.
At the proceedings, the defence lawyer informed the court that he had been contacted by the prosecution lawyer, who reportedly said he had missed his flight and would not be able to attend court.
He also indicated that there were pending applications before the court and requested a date for the hearing.
Attention then shifted to a letter dated 16 April, brought before the court through the registrar. The letter was written in the name of the law firm Sofunde, Osakwe, Ogundipe & Belgore, but was signed by an unidentified person, with no name indicated on the document.
Attached to it was a petition dated 2 March, addressed to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
Mr Aluko said he had read the petition, which accused him of gross misconduct and bias arising from proceedings of 23 October 2025.
The complaint specifically challenged the court’s decision to allow Mr Akinteye, who held a watching brief for the nominal complainant, to inform the court that the prosecution lawyer was absent because he was attending proceedings at the Court of Appeal, and to subsequently grant an adjournment.
The petition also relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Adio v. FRN (2019) LPELR-46793 (CA), which is often cited in disputes around the limits of participation by counsel holding watching briefs in criminal proceedings.
Mr Aluko, however, said the record of proceedings showed that on that date, both prosecution and defence lawyers were absent, while only a lawyer representing two respondent banks and the watching brief lawyer were in court.
According to him, the watching brief lawyer merely informed the court, with leave, 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 be able to attend, and had requested a new date.
The judge explained that he could not see how that procedural step amounted to gross misconduct as alleged.
He also noted that the petitioner, Babajide Ogundipe, acting on behalf of the law firm, had never appeared before him in the case.
Mr Aluko further observed that the defendants had consistently failed to appear in court, adding that the matter had come up more than 12 times without their presence.
He described the petition as one that appeared capable of delaying the proceedings rather than advancing the administration of justice, and cited Rule 30 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that obstructs or delays proceedings.
The judge also 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 frowns at 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 25 May.
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.
More details here…
