Federal High Court in Lagos adjourns the case against businessman Austin Ugochukwu Albert and Jinadu Musbau Olalekan after Albert failed to appear over an unsubstantiated medical emergency abroad

A high-stakes N460.75m forgery trial involving businessman Austin Ugochukwu Albert and allegations of financial diversion and signature forgery has been adjourned by the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, after the principal defendant failed to appear in court and his lawyer cited a medical emergency abroad without presenting supporting documentation.

Also read: Court orders 48 persons to report to DSS over alleged fraud

The case, Inspector General of Police v. Austin Ugochukwu Albert & 2 Others, is being prosecuted by G. T. Nev of the Directorate of Legal Services, Nigeria Police Force Headquarters, Abuja, before Justice I. A. Kala.

At the centre of the case is Albert, popularly known as Austin Albert, a Nigerian businessman with interests in real estate and the Chief Executive Officer of Dubai-based Loft & Keys Properties LLC.

Also named in the amended charge is Jinadu Musbau Olalekan, Head of Finance at a Lagos-based advisory firm jointly owned by Albert and a female business partner who serves as the company’s Chief Executive Officer.

According to the prosecution, N460,750,000 was allegedly transferred from the company’s account with Globus Bank Plc on March 6, 2026, without the knowledge or consent of the female chief executive.

The funds were allegedly transferred into an account belonging to New Power Energy and Logistics Services.

The prosecution alleges that Albert and Olalekan conspired to facilitate the transfer and subsequently forged the chief executive’s signature to authorise the transaction.

The allegations are being prosecuted under provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the Criminal Code Act.

A third defendant initially listed in the case, Ugumanim Okputu Joana Agwu, an executive assistant to Albert, had faced a separate count relating to assault.

That count was subsequently struck out by the prosecution after it was determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it alongside the financial offences.

The defendants have not been convicted of any offence. The allegations remain unproven, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.

When the matter was called this week, the courtroom was filled with observers, but the dock was without Albert.

Counsel for the first and third defendants, Malam Abdul-Hakeem Adio, told the court that Albert had recently undergone major surgery in Dubai.

However, no medical report or other documentary evidence was presented to support the explanation for his absence.

The prosecution drew the court’s attention to what it described as a discrepancy in the defence’s account.

G. T. Nev reminded the court that at the previous adjourned sitting, the defence had only informed the court that Albert was “out of the country”, without mentioning any medical condition or surgery.

The sudden reference to major surgery, the prosecution argued, raised questions because no evidence had been provided to substantiate the claim.

Justice Kala, however, declined to proceed with the matter in the absence of the principal defendant, exercising judicial discretion in the interest of a fair hearing.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter until October 5, 2026, directing that both Albert and Olalekan be present at the next hearing.

The proceedings also attracted the attention of the International Federation of Women Lawyers, Nigeria, with a delegation led by Barrister Ogechi Abu attending court.

Barristers Phil Nneji, Chioma Porom and Kemi Ogunnaike were also part of the FIDA delegation.

Barristers Oluniyi Adediji of J-K Gadzama LLP appeared on a watching brief for the nominal complainant.

Speaking after the proceedings, Abu said FIDA attended “to observe proceedings in the case between the Inspector-General of Police and Austin Albert and others.”

She noted the amendment of the charge and the removal of the separate count against the third defendant, while also highlighting what she described as changing explanations surrounding Albert’s absence.

“At the last adjourned date, there was no mention of any medical indisposition,” Abu said.

“Today, we are hearing of major surgery, yet without a medical report to show the nature of it to the court.”

Abu explained that FIDA’s interest in the proceedings was connected to the fact that the nominal complainant is a woman and that protecting women’s rights falls within the organisation’s mandate.

She commended the court for adopting a cautious approach by refusing to proceed in the absence of the principal defendant.

The defence, however, rejected any suggestion that the case should be viewed through the lens of violence against women.

Adio argued that the substance of the charge was centred on alleged forgery and financial offences.

“If you look at the entire charge sheet, the common thread is forgery,” he said. “This matter has nothing to do with violence against a woman.”

The defence lawyer also disclosed that discussions aimed at reaching an amicable settlement were ongoing between the parties.

“We came to court today expecting that path, only to be met with an amended charge this morning,” Adio said.

He expressed optimism that the parties could make progress before the next hearing.

“By the next hearing, a resolution may well be in sight,” he added.

The amended charge now leaves Albert and Olalekan as the defendants facing the remaining allegations, putting the focus firmly on the next court date.

The October 5 hearing is expected to provide an important test of whether the defendants will appear as directed and whether the defence will present the medical documentation cited to explain Albert’s absence.

The court may also receive an update on the reported settlement discussions, although any agreement between the parties would not necessarily determine the court’s handling of criminal allegations without the appropriate legal process.

For now, the case remains unresolved, with the prosecution maintaining its allegations and the defence yet to answer them through a full arraignment and trial.

The latest development has added a dramatic twist to proceedings that combine allegations of significant financial diversion, alleged forgery and questions over the circumstances surrounding the principal defendant’s absence.

Also read: EFCC re-arraigns Tunde Ayeni over alleged ₦15.6bn fraud

With the next hearing scheduled for October 5, the court, the prosecution, the defence and observers including FIDA will be watching closely to see whether the matter proceeds to substantive proceedings or whether further developments, including any settlement efforts, alter the course of the case.