A recent court proceeding in Ibadan offers a tangible example of how Nigeria’s legal system handles allegations of financial crime, moving beyond a simple police report to a formal judicial process.
On December 23, 2025, a 32-year-old woman, Zainab Adenike, was arraigned before the Iyaganku Magistrates’ Court. She faced charges of obtaining property under false pretence and stealing, to which she entered a plea of not guilty. The case, prosecuted by Sgt. Samuel Owolabi, alleges that in October 2025 at Oranyan market, Adenike obtained significant quantities of gold jewellery from two women—13.9g from Mrs. Tawa Sanusi and 48.5g from Adeola Adewale—with promises of payment totalling N9.8 million, which she subsequently failed to fulfil.
This specific incident provides a practical lens through which to examine the relevant statutes. The charges are brought under Sections 390(9) and 419 of the Criminal Law of Oyo State, 2000. Section 419 is the well-known statute criminalising obtaining by false pretences, a charge commonly associated with advance-fee fraud schemes. Section 390 deals with the offence of stealing. The prosecution’s task will be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adenike intentionally deceived the complainants to part with their gold, with no intention of payment—a key element for a 419 conviction.
The court’s initial actions highlight the balance between the presumption of innocence and ensuring the defendant’s appearance at trial. Magistrate Mrs. Gladys Oladele granted bail set at two million naira, requiring two sureties who must each be approved by the court and meet specific financial and residency criteria. This bail process is a critical, often misunderstood, part of the system; it is not a judgment of guilt but a mechanism to allow the accused to prepare their defence while mitigating flight risk.
The case has been adjourned until February 4, 2026. This several-week interval is typical, allowing time for both the prosecution and the defence to gather evidence, secure witnesses, and file necessary applications. For the complainants, Mrs. Sanusi and Ms. Adewale, the path to potential restitution is long. A conviction could lead to a court order for the defendant to repay the value of the gold, but recovery is not automatic and often depends on the defendant’s assets.
This proceeding underscores the importance of due diligence in high-value transactions, especially in informal market settings like Oranyan. It also serves as a public reminder of the legal recourse available for victims of fraud, while demonstrating the procedural steps—arraignment, bail hearing, adjournment—that characterize the early stages of a criminal case in Nigeria. The outcome will hinge on the evidence presented, including documentation of the agreements, witness testimonies, and potentially, the tracing of the gold or the promised funds.
Edited by Sandra Umeh
About Author
