By Ibrahim Salaudeen, Lagos
Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed an error filed by a Moshood Abiola Polytechnic (MAPOLY) student, Timothy Oluwabukola, and a Benin-based school proprietor, Anthony Odemerho, seeking to halt their prosecution over an alleged N1.9 billion airtime fraud involving MTN Nigeria.
The duo had approached the court to challenge the authority of the prosecutor handling the case, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Emmanuel Jackson, arguing that he had retired from service and therefore lacked the fiat of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to continue prosecuting them.
Timothy, an undergraduate of MAPOLY, Abeokuta, Ogun State, and Anthony, proprietor of Resign Regal Academy, Benin City, Edo State, are standing trial before the court in charge number FHC/L/562c/2024.
They are being prosecuted by operatives of the Police Special Fraud Unit (PSFU), Ikoyi, Lagos, over allegations bordering on conspiracy, unlawful manipulation of MTN’s computer system authorization keys and passwords, and unlawful conversion of MTN airtime valued at N1.9 billion.
According to the prosecutor, the offences are contrary to Sections 27(1)(b), 6(2), and 28(1)(b) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024, as well as Section 18(2)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The defendants had pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted bail on various terms.
However, midway into the trial, their counsel, Barrister S.O. Raheem and Barrister B.C. Alekeh, filed an application seeking to disqualify DCP Jackson from further prosecuting the matter.
The defence argued that the prosecutor, having retired from service, could no longer validly continue the prosecution without the express authorization of the AGF.
In response, Jackson filed a counter-affidavit, citing several legal authorities to justify his continued participation in the case.
He told the court: “He does not require the express authorization of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) to prosecute this charge, as the police authority can also authorize him to do so on its behalf as its lawyer either specifically for this case or generally.”
The prosecutor further argued: “The Honourable AGF does not have monopoly of public prosecutions as other authorities and persons, including the police can also prosecute criminal cases either through officers in the police force or through private lawyers engaged by the police to do so for them.”
He subsequently urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ application.
After considering the submissions and authorities cited by both parties, Justice Kakaki upheld the prosecutor’s arguments and dismissed the application seeking to stop the prosecution.
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter until September 29, 2026, for continuation of trial.
The charges against the defendants read: “That you, Timothy Fashina Oluwabukola, Anthony Imonina Odemerho and others at large, between January and April, 2024, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, conspired amongst yourselves to intentionally and without authorization, gained access into MTN Nigeria Communications Plc computer system/network, with intent to obtain data from the said computer system/network, which you subsequently used to defraud the company (MTN) to the tune of One Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira (N1,900,000,000), and thereby committed an offence, contrary to Section 27(1)(b) of the Cybercrime (prohibition, prevention, etc) Act, 2015 as amended in 2024, but punishable under Section 8(2) of the same Act.
“That you, Timothy Fashina Oluwabukola, Anthony Imonina Odemerho and Others at large, between January and April, 2024, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, intentionally and without authorization, accessed the computer system or network of MTN Nigeria Communication Pie through the unlawful use of authorization keys and passwords to gain access to MTN web-based platform known as Application Programming Interface (API), with intent of obtaining airtime data from the said computer system or network, valued at One Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira N1, 900, 000, 000), which you sold to the public and converted the proceeds of same to your own use and benefit, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(2) of the Cybercrime (prevention, prohibition, etc) Act, 2015 is amended in 2024,
“That you, Timothy Fashina Oluwabukola, Anthony Imonina Odemerho and thers at large, between January and April, 2024, in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, unlawfully manipulated MTN Nigeria Communications Plc (MTN) computer system authorization keys or passwords which you used to access MTN. web-based platform also known as Application Programme Interface (API) and fraudulently obtained airtime from the said computer system, valued at N1,900,000,000 (One billion, Nine hundred Million Naira) which you later converted to data and sold to the public and thereby caused financial loss to MTN Nigeria Communications Plc and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 28(1)(b) of the cybercrime (prohibition, prevention, etc) Act, 2015 as amended in 2024, but punishable under Section 28(4) of the same Act.
“That you, Timothy Fashina Oluwabukola, Anthony Imonina Odemerho and hers at large, between January and April, 2024, in Lagos and Edo States, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, directly and intentionally converted MTN Nigeria Communications Plc property to wit: airtime valued One Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira (N1, 900, 000, 000) to data which you sold to members of the public and later used the proceeds for your own benefits, which property/airtime, you knew or reasonably ought to have known formed part of the proceeds of unlawful act, namely unauthorized access into MIN computer system/network where the property/airtime was stored, and thereby committed an offence, contrary to Section 18(2)(b) of the Money Laundering (prevention and prohibition) Act, 2022 but punishable under Section 18(3) of the same Act.”
