The Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja has set 15 October for judgment in the N6 billion money laundering trial of social media personality Ismaila Mustapha, popularly known as Mompha.
The trial judge, Mojisola Dada, fixed the date after hearing the final written addresses of both the prosecution and the defence, according to a statement shared on Tuesday by the spokesperson for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Dele Oyewale.
The EFCC arraigned Mr Mustapha alongside his company, Ismalob Global Investment Limited, on 12 January 2022 on eight counts of conspiracy to launder funds allegedly obtained through unlawful activities, retention of proceeds of criminal conduct, failure to disclose assets, and possession of documents containing false pretences, among other offences.
One of the charges alleges that Mr Mustapha, Ahmadu Mohammed, who is said to be at large, and Ismalob Global Investment Limited conspired in 2016 to conduct financial transactions amounting to N5,998,884,653.18 with the intent of promoting unlawful activities, namely obtaining money by false pretence.
Prosecution seeks conviction
While presenting its case, the prosecution, led by S. I. Suleiman, called six witnesses and tendered several documentary exhibits before closing its case.
At the hearing on Tuesday, defence lawyer Kolawole Salami adopted the defendants’ final written address dated 18 June, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr Salami argued that his clients’ decision not to open a defence did not absolve the prosecution of its legal duty to prove every element of the charges.
He maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the offences alleged in Counts One to Six, particularly the allegation of obtaining by false pretence.
The defence lawyer also argued that Exhibit P5, the extra-judicial statement relied upon by the prosecution, was merely a statement and did not establish the offences charged.
He further contended that none of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the sixth prosecution witness, EFCC investigating officer Idi Musa, provided either direct or circumstantial evidence capable of sustaining the conspiracy charge.
Mr Salami consequently urged the court to discharge and acquit the defendants.
Defence objects
Responding, Mr Suleiman adopted the prosecution’s final written address and urged the court to dismiss the defence’s arguments and convict the defendants as charged.
He argued that the prosecution called six witnesses and tendered sufficient documentary evidence to establish the offences.
According to Mr Suleiman, “From the evidence before the court, it is our humble submission that the opportunity has once again presented itself for the invocation of the judicial powers of this court to send a clear signal and warning to persons engaging in nefarious activities that cast the image of the country in a bad light among the comity of nations. The defendants availed their bank accounts to internet fraudsters to launder funds derived from fraudulent sources.”
He added that a conviction would serve as a deterrent to the defendants and others contemplating similar offences capable of tarnishing Nigeria’s image.
After hearing the submissions of both parties, Ms Dada reserved judgement until 15 October.
Tuesday’s proceedings marked the latest stage in a trial that has spanned more than four years.
Mr Mustapha and his company pleaded not guilty after they were arraigned by the EFCC on 12 January 2022 on the eight-count charge.
In November 2025, Ms Dada dismissed a no-case submission filed by the defendants, holding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case requiring them to enter their defence.
READ ALSO: EFCC arraigns Mompha’s associate, three firms over alleged N206 million money laundering
The judge held that the evidence presented by the prosecution disclosed sufficient grounds for the defendants to respond to the allegations.
The defence subsequently indicated its intention to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal, maintaining that the prosecution had failed to link Mr Mustapha to the alleged offences. The court, however, granted leave to appeal while allowing the trial to continue.
When the matter proceeded to the defence stage, the case took another turn on 28 April after Mr Mustapha’s lawyer opted not to present any witness. Ms Dada consequently closed the defence’s case and set aside a witness summons filed by the defence, ruling that it had been issued in error and describing it as an attempt to delay the proceedings.
The judge held that the witness the defence sought to call had already testified for the prosecution and had been extensively cross-examined, leaving no new evidence to be elicited.
She subsequently directed both parties to file their final written addresses, paving the way for their adoption.
Throughout the trial, Mr Mustapha has denied any wrongdoing.
