Photo caption: EFCC logo
A shareholding disagreement that arose from purely a business transaction between the Managing Director of Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL), Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel (UJI) and his business partner Adebisi Adebutu, the founder of R28 Holdings Ltd, has resulted in a legal tussle as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed a criminal charge against Mr Immanuel in a matter that is entirely civil in nature.
Court filings revealed that the dispute arose from a shareholding disagreement between the business partners; an entirely commercial matter, which is outside the EFCC’s mandate.
However, acting on Adebutu’s complaint, the EFCC had arrested Immanuel and on March 11, 2026, arraigned him alongside his company, IIHL, before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court, Ikeja, Lagos, on a two-count charge of alleged obtaining by false pretence and forgery to the tune of $1.5million.
Mr Immanuel had pleaded not guilty to the charge and his counsel moved for his bail.
His bail application was refused by Justice Dada and the defendant has remained in detention for several weeks, despite a pending order of the Federal High Court, Abuja which restrained the Commission from arresting or detaining him.
Adebutu and his company , R28 also instituted a suit against Immanuel and his firm before the Supreme Court of Mauritius.
Whereas the EFCC filed a criminal charge against Immanuel at the Ikeja court, a similar suit filed by Adebutu at the Supreme Court of Mauritius against IIHL, UJI, and Ocorian (Mauritius) Limited over the same shareholding disagreement was purely civil in nature.
In the charge brought before Justice Dada, the EFCC claimed that Immanuel, who is also the managing director of Chappal Energy induced Adebutu to invest $1.5 million in IIHL between April 2022 and October 2023 for purported investments in Chappal Petroleum Development Company Limited, business development cost in IIHL, and capital call in Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited.
The Commission also alleged that the defendant had promised Adebutu that the investment would be reimbursed, alongside a $2.25 million development capital fee and 22.4 per cent shares in Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited, but that it turned out to be false.
The EFCC alleged that Immanuel forged the Term Sheet with the signatures of Sheriff Oluwo and Olaniran Osatuyi, to induce Adebutu and R28 to pay the sum of $1.5m for shares in IIHL.
However, contrary to the forgery allegation by the EFCC, Adebutu and R28, in a similar suit before the Supreme Court of Mauritius are seeking 22.4% of the shares in IIHL by virtue of the same term sheet, which EFCC alleged was forged by Immanuel).
Also, in the suit before the Supreme Court of Mauritius, there is no allegation that the purported forgery instigated R28’s agreement to consummate the transaction with UJI (Immanuel) and IIHL. R28 did not deny the transaction in the first place.
Recall that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, presided over by Justice Josephine Obanor, had granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the EFCC and other listed respondents from inviting, questioning, arresting, detaining or otherwise acting against Immanuel or Chappal Energies.
Despite the pending order of the court, the EFCC, acting on the petition by Adebutu, arrested Immanuel and arraigned him and his company before another judge on alleged criminal charges even when it was obvious that the transaction which led to the dispute was purely civil.
Also, in a flagrant breach of the order of the court, the EFCC had declared Immanuel wanted
and published his photo via its social media handle despite that he was fully reachable through his established official addresses, phone lines and electronic contacts.
In a Summons for Bail, dated March 5, 2026, his counsel, prayed the court for an order admitting him to bail in the most liberal terms pending trial.
The counsel asserted that Immanuel is a key player in the oil and gas sector and cannot be described as a flight risk. He also noted that he is not a fugitive, given that he voluntarily appeared in court when he became aware of the criminal charge against him.
But in a ruling on May 7, Justice Dada dismissed the preliminary objections and bail application filed by the IIHL boss. Subsequent applications for his bail have been turned down by the judge despite that the case against him is bailable.
There is growing concern in the country that the EFCC is completely deviating from its core mandate and in some cases act as a debt collection agency in purely civil disputes.
The agency is also accused of transforming civil disputes into criminal offenses even when it is crystal clear that no fraudulent intent exists.
Nigerian courts have repeatedly held that the EFCC’s powers of investigation, arrest, and prosecution are strictly limited to cases involving economic and financial crimes, not mere breaches of contract or civil obligations.
The courts declared that the EFCC lack the legal authority to intervene in civil disputes.
