The absence of lawyers for both the prosecution and defence on Wednesday stalled proceedings in the alleged N5.2bn fraud trial of a former Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board, Dibu Ojerinde, at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
When the case was brought before Justice Obiora Egwuatu, neither the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission nor Ojerinde was present in the courtroom.
As a result, Justice Egwuatu postponed the case until March 25 for either an update on settlement talks or for the trial to proceed, and instructed that notification of the hearing be sent to all involved parties.
It is important to note that on July 16, 2025, Ojerinde and the ICPC had informed the court about their intentions to resolve the N5.2 billion case outside of court.
At a prior session, Ojerinde’s attorney, Eteya Ogana, informed the court that while the defense was scheduled to present its case, discussions were still underway to resolve the issue outside of court.
Ogana requested an extended postponement to allow both parties to update the court on the results of the negotiation efforts, a request that was supported by the ICPC attorney, Lesie Iheduru.
The former JAMB registrar had previously pursued a plea deal with the anti-corruption agency in February 2022, but that arrangement ultimately fell through.
Ojerinde was charged in July 2021 with 18 counts related to corruption and fraud.
The ICPC claimed he engaged in various financial misconducts while leading the National Examinations Council and JAMB, which included abuse of power and the fraudulent misappropriation of public funds amounting to N5.2bn.
He entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.
Justice Egwuatu previously rejected Ojerinde’s submission of no case and directed him to present his defense, stating that the prosecution had demonstrated a prima facie case.
The judge determined that the prosecution’s witnesses had established the elements of the charges, necessitating the defendant to present his defense.
The commission stated that the purported offenses violated Sections 19, 24, and 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, as well as Section 1(1)(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, 2006.
