$87m: Abuja court fixes date for trial of computer-related theft suspect, varies bail condition 

A Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, fixed May 14 for the trial of Abayomi OluwaSesan who was indicted in a computer-related theft case involving $87,883,904.

Nairametrics previously reported that the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, had sued the defendant for allegedly gaining unauthorized access to subscribers’ investments at the Afriq Arbitrage Company, an online trading platform, and stealing $87,883,904.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant, who pleaded not guilty to the charges,  committed cybercrime and money laundering against the trading platform by knowingly and without authority fraudulently changing the ownership credentials of the Chief Executive Officer of Afriq Arbitrage Company, thereby gaining access to millions of subscribers’ investments and diverting the sum of $87,883,904 to himself.

He was granted bail by Justice M.S Idris.

But the defendant’s counsel, Ayotunde Ogunleye (SAN), had sought leave of court to vary the bail conditions of his client, especially in the area of sureties and today was fixed for ruling.

What transpired in court

At the resumed hearing on Thursday, the Presiding Judge, Justice M.S. Idris, agreed to vary the bail condition of the defendant.

Earlier, the judge had ordered that the sureties must own properties in Maitama, Abuja,(a high-brow area of Nigeria’s capital).

But his lawyer had said getting sureties from Maitama has been difficult, praying the judge to permit his client to get a surety from any part of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

In his ruling, the judge agreed with the defendant counsel and directed that his sureties come from any part of the FCT.

The court subsequently adjourned till May 14, 15 and 16 for trial.

What you should know

• The IGP had sued the defendant in a similar case before the Federal High Court in suit no: FHC/ABJ/CR/289/2023.
• The blockchain trading platform reported the development to the police, alleging its platform was not hacked but was accessed by its staff.
• The police sued the defendant on behalf of the trading platform.