After Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac reportedly endured 23 days confined inside her residence and another two days in EFCC custody, the Commission still attempted to keep her detained until October. The court refused, questioned whether the prosecution had become personal and raised the spectre of a witch-hunt.
After 23 days of reported confinement inside her residence and two further days in EFCC custody, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission asked the court to revoke Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac’s bail and keep her detained until 26 October 2026.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik refused.
In a rebuke that now hangs heavily over the EFCC’s conduct, the judge reportedly asked:
“Don’t you think you are becoming too personal about this case? Are you witch-hunting something?”
The court made it clear that its earlier order was intended only to secure Rebecca’s attendance at trial. It was not permission for the EFCC to retain control of her liberty for another three months.
The judge reportedly noted that Rebecca had not previously caused difficulty in attending the proceedings or shown any unwillingness to face trial.
This was not simply the rejection of another prosecution request.
It was a judicial warning that the EFCC’s conduct was creating the appearance of something far more disturbing than impartial law enforcement.
THE TITLES WERE CONNECTED TO COMPANIES IN WHICH COLLEEN HAD NO CORPORATE INTEREST
The prosecution’s own evidence identified May Estate Agency and Famfam Nigeria Limited as the corporate entities connected to Plots 1861 and 1862.
Colleen Mero Yesufu was not identified as the original allottee of either plot or as the person in whose name the original titles were issued.
The defence position is categorical: Colleen is not, and has never been, a director or shareholder of May Estate Agency, Famfam Nigeria Limited or any of the companies originally connected to the plots.
That fact strikes at the very foundation of her personal claim.
She was not the original allottee.
She was not a director.
She was not a shareholder.
She had no established corporate interest in the companies connected to the titles.
Yet her complaint became the basis for the aggressive deployment of the EFCC against Rebecca.
The central issue cannot be avoided:
How did plots belonging to companies in which Colleen had no directorship, shareholding or corporate interest allegedly become her personal property?
Until that question is answered by clear and credible evidence, Colleen’s claim cannot reasonably be treated as settled fact.
THE MISSING SHAKA BRAIMAH AUTHORISATION DEEPENS THE DOUBT
The prosecution’s witness testified that one Shaka Braimah collected the title documents for the disputed plots from the FCT Department of Land Administration.
The defence maintains that those documents were later handed to Colleen, even though she was not a director or shareholder of the companies connected to the plots.
But the document that should explain Shaka Braimah’s authority cannot be produced.
Abdulhamid Wundil of the Department of Land Administration reportedly admitted under cross-examination that the relevant authorisation letter could not be traced and might have been lost.
That missing document is not a minor administrative error.
It is the document that should reveal which company authorised Shaka Braimah, who signed the authority, what powers were granted to him and how documents belonging to corporate entities allegedly came into Colleen’s possession.
Without that document, a critical part of the chain remains unexplained.