Controversy Trails EFCC’s Prosecution of IIHL Boss Over Investment Dispute

Wale Igbintade 

Controversy has continued to trail the prosecution of the Managing Director of Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL), Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), amid claims that the dispute at the centre of the case arose from a commercial transaction between business partners and is the subject of parallel proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction.

Immanuel, who is also the Managing Director of Chappal Energy, was arraigned alongside his company, IIHL, before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos, on March 11, 2026. 

The EFCC charged him on a two-count allegation bordering on obtaining by false pretence and forgery involving an investment transaction valued at $1.5 million.

The prosecution followed a petition reportedly submitted to the anti-graft agency by businessman Adebisi Adebutu, owner of R28 Holdings Limited. 

The dispute relates to a business arrangement involving investment in IIHL and the acquisition of equity interests connected with the company’s operations and affiliated entities.

According to the EFCC, Immanuel allegedly induced Adebutu and R28 Holdings to invest $1.5 million in IIHL between April 2022 and October 2023 for purposes including investments in Chappal Petroleum Development Company Limited, business development costs in IIHL and capital calls in Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited.

The commission further alleged that the defendant represented that the investment would entitle Adebutu and his company to reimbursement, a development capital fee of $2.25 million and a 22.4 per cent equity stake in IIHL.

The EFCC contended that those representations were false and formed part of the basis for the criminal charges.

In addition, the anti-corruption agency accused Immanuel of forging a term sheet by allegedly inserting the signatures of two individuals, Sheriff Oluwo and Olaniran Osatuyi, in order to induce the investment. Immanuel has denied wrongdoing.

The prosecution has, however, generated debate in legal and business circles because the same transaction is reportedly the subject of ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court of Mauritius involving IIHL, Immanuel, Ocorian (Mauritius) Limited, R28 Holdings and Adebutu.

According to documents relating to the Mauritius proceedings, R28 Holdings and Adebutu are seeking recognition of a 22.4 per cent shareholding interest in IIHL allegedly arising from the same transaction and term sheet that forms part of the allegations in the Nigerian criminal case.

It was alleged that the existence of the Mauritius proceedings demonstrated that the dispute is fundamentally a commercial and shareholding disagreement between business partners rather than a criminal matter. 

They also contend that the claim for equity participation in Mauritius appears inconsistent with allegations that the underlying transaction was invalid.

Another issue that has attracted attention is an order reportedly issued by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on September 11, 2025. 

The court, presided over by Justice Josephine Obanor, is said to have granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the EFCC and other respondents from inviting, questioning, arresting, detaining or otherwise taking action against Immanuel and Chappal Energies pending the determination of the suit before it.

Lawyers acting for Immanuel have maintained that despite the subsisting order, the EFCC proceeded with investigations, declared him wanted and subsequently arraigned him before the Lagos court. 

They argued that these actions raised concerns about compliance with judicial orders and due process. The EFCC has yet to publicly respond to those specific allegations.

In an application dated March 5, 2026, Immanuel’s counsel urged the court to admit him to bail on liberal terms, arguing that he is a prominent participant in the oil and gas sector with established business interests and is not a flight risk. 

The defence further noted that he voluntarily appeared before the court after becoming aware of the charges.

Justice Dada, however, dismissed the defendant’s preliminary objections and bail application in a ruling delivered on May 7, 2026.

Subsequent bail applications have also been unsuccessful, leaving the IIHL boss to continue facing trial while in custody. 

As proceedings continue, the case is expected to test important questions regarding the intersection of commercial disputes, criminal prosecution and the enforcement of court orders in Nigeria’s justice system.