Judge rules prosecution failed to establish likelihood of witness interference as former Code of Conduct Tribunal chairman pleads not guilty to four-count abuse of office charge.
By A1NEWS International
ABUJA, Nigeria — July 15, 2026
A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has admitted former Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Yakubu Umar, to N100 million bail following his arraignment by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on allegations of abuse of office involving the alleged receipt of funds from contractors engaged by the Tribunal.
Justice Peter Kekemeke, who presided over the proceedings on Wednesday, held that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence showing that Umar would interfere with witnesses or obstruct the judicial process if released pending trial.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until October 29, 2026, for the commencement of trial.
The case adds to a growing list of high-profile anti-corruption prosecutions involving former public office holders, with the EFCC alleging that the former tribunal chairman improperly benefited from official contracts while occupying one of Nigeria’s foremost ethics enforcement positions.
Court Sets Strict Bail Conditions
In his ruling, Justice Kekemeke granted the defendant bail in the sum of N100 million.
The court further ordered that Umar must provide one surety in like sum, who must own verifiable property within the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.
The judge observed that while the allegations against the defendant are serious, Nigerian law guarantees every accused person the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Justice Kekemeke stressed that bail remains a constitutional right unless the prosecution establishes compelling reasons for its denial.
Why the Court Granted Bail
Delivering his ruling, the judge stated that the prosecution had not demonstrated that Umar posed a flight risk or was likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence.
He held that before bail can be refused, the prosecution must establish credible grounds showing that the defendant may:
- Interfere with witnesses;
- Commit another offence while on bail;
- Conceal or destroy evidence; or
- Obstruct the administration of justice.
Justice Kekemeke noted that none of those conditions had been sufficiently established.
The court also recalled that the EFCC had earlier granted Umar administrative bail during its investigation and that he consistently honoured invitations without absconding.
EFCC Levels Four Abuse of Office Charges
The EFCC arraigned the former CCT chairman on a four-count charge bordering on alleged abuse of office under the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
According to the anti-graft agency, Umar allegedly exploited his official position to obtain financial benefits from contractors handling projects for the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
Among the allegations are that:
- In 2021, he allegedly used his wife’s bank account to receive N5.5 million from a contractor engaged to repaint the headquarters of the Code of Conduct Tribunal in Abuja.
- On January 25, 2024, he allegedly received another N6 million, also through his wife’s bank account, from a contractor responsible for the digitisation of the Tribunal’s official records.
- He allegedly instructed another contractor to pay N2.43 million directly to Baze University, Abuja, as tuition fees for his daughter.
The EFCC contends that the alleged conduct constitutes offences punishable under Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
Former Tribunal Chairman Denies Allegations
When the charges were read before the court, Umar pleaded not guilty to all four counts.
His defence counsel, Sunday Edward, urged the court to grant bail, arguing that his client had demonstrated full cooperation throughout the EFCC’s investigation.
According to the defence, Umar honoured every invitation extended by investigators during the approximately one-year investigation and complied with all administrative bail conditions previously granted by the Commission.
Edward argued that there was no evidence suggesting his client intended to evade trial or frustrate judicial proceedings.
EFCC Opposes Bail
The prosecution, led by Christopher Mshelia, opposed the bail application.
Mshelia argued that the seriousness of the allegations and the potential penalty upon conviction justified the refusal of bail.
He also contended that circumstances had changed since the investigative stage because formal criminal charges had now been filed.
The prosecution further argued that some of the witnesses expected to testify previously worked under the defendant, creating what it described as a likelihood of witness interference.
“There is a likelihood of interference,” the prosecution submitted.
Court Questions Prosecution’s Position
During the hearing, Justice Kekemeke questioned the prosecution regarding Umar’s conduct while under investigation.
The judge asked whether the EFCC had earlier granted the defendant bail and whether he had ever attempted to flee.
The prosecution acknowledged that Umar had indeed been granted administrative bail and had not absconded.
Although the EFCC maintained that the filing of formal charges altered the legal circumstances, the court ultimately concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Legal Significance of the Case
The prosecution is expected to examine the extent to which public office holders may lawfully interact with contractors executing government projects under their supervision.
Legal analysts note that the case could also clarify judicial interpretation of abuse of office provisions contained in Nigeria’s anti-corruption laws, particularly where allegations involve indirect financial transactions through third-party accounts.
The trial is also likely to test the evidentiary burden required to establish personal benefit arising from official contracts.
Presumption of Innocence Remains
While the EFCC has outlined serious allegations against the former CCT chairman, the court emphasized that Umar remains legally presumed innocent until the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The granting of bail does not amount to an acquittal or a determination on the merits of the allegations but merely allows the defendant to remain at liberty while facing trial.
With bail now granted and trial scheduled to commence on October 29, 2026, attention will turn to the prosecution’s evidence and the defence’s response in what is expected to be another closely watched anti-corruption trial.
The proceedings are likely to attract significant public and legal scrutiny given the defendant’s former position as head of the Code of Conduct Tribunal—an institution established to enforce ethical standards among Nigeria’s public officials.
Leave a Reply