A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, ordered the remand of 109 foreigners, charged over allegations bordering on cybercrime, in Kuje and Suleja Correctional Centres.
Justice Ekerete Akpan gave the order following an application by one of the defence counsel, James Onoja, SAN, for an adjournment to allow the prosecution to reflect the defendants’ names correctly on the charge sheet.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the foreigners, who are said to be citizens of China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Malaysia and Myanmar, were recently arrested by the police.
They were apprehended in their residence at Plot 1906, Cadestral Zone 807, Katampe District of Abuja, where they were said to be engaging in cybercrime by allegedly promoting “a fraudulent and unregistered gaming platform.”
In a six-count charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/599/2024 filed in the name of the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police, the foreigners were charged with cybercrime, money laundering and unlawfully residing in Nigeria.
At the resumed hearing on Friday, Onoja informed the court that while conducting Know-Your-Customer (KYC) procedures for his clients, he discovered that their actual names were not reflected on the charge sheet.
“This information came to light when we were discussing the possible terms of bail for the defendants.
“We told them that the court would ask for their travel documents, and they said the names on the charge sheet were not their names,” he said.
The senior lawyer said that he had discussed the matter with the prosecution lawyer, A.A. Egwu.
He said they requested the defendants’ travel documents so that their proper names could be reflected on the charge sheet.
He emphasised that it was the defendants’ responsibility to provide their correct travel documents for the plea and trial to proceed smoothly.
Onoja, therefore, proposed that the arraignment be adjourned in the interest of justice.
Egwu, who appeared for the police, responded that the court could make an order for the defendants’ respective embassies to provide their travel documents.
“We do not oppose the request for an adjournment,” he said.
Egwu also drew the court’s attention to an earlier ex-parte motion, which requested that the defendants be moved from the police facility and remanded at the correctional centre pending the determination of their bail.
He explained that the police facility was overwhelmed and lacking the necessary resources.
Eric Obah, who represented defendants 100 to 104 (Brazilians), did not oppose Onoja’s submission.
He, however, requested a separate trial for his clients.
Onoja also agreed that the defendants be remanded in a correctional centre for their safety.
Justice Akpan held that given Egwu’s position regarding the state of the police facility, it was appropriate to remand the defendants at the correctional centres.
The judge, who ordered the defendants to be remanded in Kuje and Suleja Correctional Centres, adjourned the matter until Nov. 29 for their arraignment.
NAN reports that in one of the counts, they were alleged to have aided, abetted, conspired among themselves “to commit an offence, to wit; cybercrime.”
They were said to have committed the offence contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015 (As Amended, 2024).
They were also alleged to have “knowingly accessed a computer and network and input, alter, delete or suppress data resulting in inauthentic data with the intention that such inauthentic data will be considered or acted upon as If they were authentic or genuine.”
The offence is said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 13 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015 (As Amended, 2024).”
Again, they were alleged to have removed from Nigeria proceeds generated from operating fraudulent and unregistered gambling platforms.
“These platforms are 9f.com, c2.top, 8pg.top and you thereby commit money laundering, contrary to and punishable under Section 18 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”
The defendants were also accused of entering “the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a business permit of 30 days duration and failed, or neglected to leave the Nigerian territory at the expiration of the said permit and remained in Nigeria without a valid resident permit or appropriate valid visa.”
The offence is contrary to Section 4 (2) and punishable under Section 44 (1) (c) of the Immigration Act 2015.”
Follow us on all social media platforms @dailyquery for more stories around the globe.
