Complainant Alleges Breach of Fair Hearing in Dismissal of Criminal Case Against NIRSAL Director, Dafinone

Prince Lukman Adeleke, the nominal complainant in the criminal case filed against a board member of the Nigerian Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL), Dr. Daphne Dafinone, has appealed the ruling of the Federal High Court in Lagos, which struck out the N100 million fraud charge.

Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala had on June 17, 2025, struck out Charge No. FHC/L/661c/2024 following a Notice of Discontinuance filed by Barrister Anthony Iyeye, a prosecutor in the Police Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Alagbon, Lagos.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Prince Adeleke, through his lawyer Waheed Isiaka, filed a Notice of Appeal listing the Inspector General of Police, Dr. Daphne Dafinone, and CEDDI Corporation Limited as respondents.

He is also seeking an injunction to prevent the movement or transfer of funds from UBA Account No. 1000767669, allegedly the proceeds of the fraud pending the outcome of the appeal.

Adeleke, who claims to be the direct victim of the alleged N100 million fraud, is urging the appellate court to set aside the ruling of the trial court for denying him access to justice and violating his constitutional right to fair hearing.

In the appeal, Adeleke contends that the trial court erred by failing to hear and determine his pending Motion on Notice filed on June 10, 2025, which challenged the legality of the Police’s discontinuance of the criminal charge.

He described the discontinuance as unconstitutional and an usurpation of the powers of the Attorney General of the Federation.

He argued that while he was negotiating an out-of-court settlement with the second and third respondents, (Dr. Dafinone and CEDDI Corporation), the Police abruptly filed the Notice of Discontinuance without informing or seeking his input as the complainant.

Adeleke’s motion to oppose the withdrawal was allegedly ignored by the trial court, which proceeded to strike out the case solely on the strength of the Police’s application.

According to the appeal documents, Adeleke’s counsel was present in court and attempted to move the Motion on Notice on June 17, but the court declined to hear it.

Instead, it entertained the Police’s discontinuance notice and summarily struck out the charge.

The appellant contends that the court’s action amounted to a violation of the audi alteram partem principle, a key pillar of natural justice and rendered the entire proceedings of June 17, 2025, a nullity.

“The trial court failed to give equal opportunity and treatment to the appellant, whose motion was completely ignored, while the respondent’s discontinuance application was heard and granted,” the appeal reads.

In addition to urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s ruling, Adeleke is also seeking an order to restrain the respondents from tampering with the disputed UBA account funds, which he claims are the proceeds of the alleged fraud.

He submitted that his appeal would be rendered nugatory if the respondents are allowed to transfer or dissipate the funds before the appellate court delivers its decision.

Adeleke further insisted that his grounds of appeal are not only arguable but raise fundamental constitutional issues, especially around denial of fair hearing and improper termination of criminal proceedings.