Rismadarvoice- 14 November 2025
Uyo Zonal Directorate of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arraigned six men before Justice Onah Sergius of the Federal High Court 2, sitting in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, over their alleged involvement in a land fraud scheme.
The defendants: Emmanuel Edet Okon, Essein Edem Archibong, Edet Sam Udoh (alias Enobong Clement Etim), Edwin Etim, Anthony Christopher Atauyo and Imaikop Okon Dickson were docked on a three-count charge bordering on money laundering, conspiracy and obtaining by false pretence.
One of the counts reads: “That you, Emmanuel Edet Okon, Essein Edem Archibong, Edet Sam Udoh (alias Enobong Clement Etim), Edwin Etim, Anthony Christopher Atauyo, and Imaikop Okon Dickson, sometime in July 2025 at Uyo, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, using account number 1027675758 domiciled in United Bank for Africa (UBA), took possession of the sum of ₦5,980,000.00 (Five Million, Nine Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira), knowing that the said money formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act, to wit: obtaining money by false pretence; thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 18(2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Section 18(3) of the same Act.”
All six defendants pleaded not guilty.
Following their pleas, prosecution counsel, Khamis Mahmoud urged the court to fix a date for trial to enable the EFCC call its witnesses.
Defense counsel: Peter Ekpo, Nsikak Edet, and Emmanuel Udoi prayed the court for a short adjournment to allow them file formal bail applications.
Justice Onah subsequently adjourned the matter to November 24, 2025, for bail hearing and trial, ordering that the defendants be remanded at the Nigerian Correctional Centre, Uyo.
The case originated from a petition by one Aniekan Etukudo Koffi, who alleged that the defendants conspired and defrauded him of ₦6 million under the pretext of selling him a plot of land at Ifa Ikot Ubo, Ifa Ikot Okpon Etoi in Uyo Local Government Area.
According to the petitioner, attempts to access and develop the property were resisted, as the land did not belong to the defendants.
