ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

…She Refunded Only N50m Of N118m, Threatened To Arrest Victim When He Demanded His Balance

Senator Ireti Kingibe, the representative of the Federal Capital Territory in the 10th National Assembly, has been petitioned to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over allegations that she allegedly collected $65,000, equivalent to N118 million at the time, from a businessman to facilitate a Federal Government contract that the petitioner alleges never existed, subsequently denied receiving the money, then reluctantly refunded only N50 million, and allegedly threatened to have the businessman arrested when he insisted on recovering the outstanding N68 million balance.

The petition, dated April 27, 2026, was filed by lawyer Elochukwu Obi on behalf of his client, Mr. Nonso Okafor, and addressed to the office of the lCPC Chairman, requesting an urgent investigation to determine whether criminal infractions and abuse of public office have occurred, and seeking the recovery of the outstanding funds.

According to the petition, the arrangement began in October 2024 when Mr. Osereme Christian Omofoma, Senator Kingibe’s Senior Legislative Aide, approached the businessman.

The SLA allegedly pleaded with Okafor “to help him raise $100,000 for the Senator to enable her to meet urgent financial needs,” promising that the money would be repaid in full or, alternatively, that the senator would facilitate the award of Federal Government contracts to Okafor through
which he would recoup his money.

The petition stated that Okafor was initially reluctant to participate in the arrangement, “especially as he did not have the huge amount of money that was demanded at that time.”

However, the SLA allegedly exerted “enormous pressure” on the businessman, who was eventually had to borrow from friends in order to meet up with the cash demand.”

Okafor managed to raise $65,000 of the $100,000 initially demanded, borrowing the funds “at exorbitant interest rates,” a detail that underscores the financial strain the arrangement placed on the businessman even before the alleged fraud was discovered.

The petition stated that the $65,000 was paid to Senator Kingibe in two tranches in October 2024.

The businessman was told that the promised contract award would materialise within a few weeks of payment.

“After the payment, our client futilely waited far beyond the envisaged timeframe for the promised contracts, but nothing
materialised” the petition stated.

After several months of waiting, the petition alleged, “it dawned on our client that there was no contract for him and that he had simply been misled!”

At this point, Okafor began requesting a refund of his money.
When the businessman sought his money back, the senator’s response, according to the petition, shifted from evasiveness to outright denial.

“The Senator not only refused to refund the money, but she also began to actively claim that she did not receive any money from our client” the petition stated.

The denial, if accurate, represents a significant escalation, as it would mean the senator was not merely failing to fulfil a
promise but was denying the existence of the transaction itself, despite the businessman having records of the

Unable to communicate directly with the senator after being cut off, Okafor continued to press for his refund through
the SLA, Omofoma.

When Okafor expressed his determination to involve law enforcement, the response from the senator’s side shifted again.

“Upon our client’s expression of his determination to get the law enforcement involved in the matter, they reluctantly decided to unilaterally pay only N50,000,000 out of the total $65,000 (N118,000,000)” the petition stated.

This payment was made in May 2025. The N50 million refund created a new problem. At the exchange rate at the time
of the original payment,

Okafor had paid N118 million. The N50 million refund left an outstanding balance of N68 million.

“After this, Senator Kingibe and her aide tried to compel our client to accept the payment as full and final, with threats to arrest him if he refuses to forgo the balance,” the petition alleged.

Despite the threats, the petition stated that “our client continued to peacefully press for the completion of his money, which remains N68,000,000. All subsequent appeals for the payment fell on deaf ears.”

“Our client believes that there were no contracts for the Senator to facilitate in the first place.

On the contrary, the facilitation of contract was a deceitful gimmick which was deployed to fraudulently collect money from him, without any intention of refunding the same,” Obi stated.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Gloria Ikibah

Nigeria and Venezuela have agreed to reschedule their long-anticipated Joint Commission meeting, signalling a renewed push to deepen diplomatic and economic ties while allowing more time to prepare for meaningful outcomes.

The decision followed a high-level meeting in Abuja between Nigeria’s Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Dunoma Umar Ahmed, and Venezuela’s Ambassador, Alberto Castellar Padilla, where both sides reviewed plans for the second session of the bilateral commission initially slated for June 2026.

Officials acknowledged that evolving administrative developments in both countries could affect the original timetable, prompting a mutual decision to shift the meeting rather than delay it indefinitely.

Speaking during the engagement, Ambassador Ahmed underscored Nigeria’s commitment to the partnership, and added that the decision to reschedule was deliberate and strategic.

He said: “Nigeria remains firmly committed to strengthening its longstanding diplomatic relations with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and to ensuring that the Joint Commission delivers concrete and mutually beneficial outcomes.

“Both sides have agreed, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, to move the meeting to a more suitable date to allow for comprehensive preparation, effective participation, and a successful engagement.”

The Permanent Secretary also expressed solidarity with Venezuela’s ongoing reforms and welcomed recent improvements in its economic outlook.

“We recognise and support Venezuela’s ongoing economic and institutional reforms, and we are encouraged by recent positive developments, including the easing of sanctions on key financial institutions, which hold significant potential for enhanced bilateral cooperation”, he noted.

On his part, Ambassador Padilla reaffirmed Venezuela’s readiness to deepen ties with Nigeria, describing the Joint Commission as a vital platform for collaboratio.

“The Joint Commission remains an essential mechanism for advancing cooperation between our two countries across critical sectors, and Venezuela is committed to working closely with Nigeria to ensure its success”, he said.

Both countries highlighted priority areas including agriculture, oil and gas, energy, mining, manufacturing, and information and communication technology as key pillars for expanded cooperation.

To support the process, the two sides agreed to establish a joint technical committee tasked with reviewing existing agreements, updating outdated frameworks, and coordinating documentation ahead of the rescheduled meeting.

A new date for the Joint Commission will be formally communicated once consultations are concluded.

The renewed engagement reflects over six decades of diplomatic relations between the two nations, anchored on shared interests in energy, development, and South–South cooperation, with both sides reiterating their commitment to tackling emerging global challenges through sustained dialogue.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Ekerete Akpan of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, fixed June 22, July 1 and 2, 2026 for definite hearing in the trial of the Chief Executive Officer of Onome Global Market Resources Limited and Lexicon Multi-concept Media Limited, Osabohein Alex Ologbose, and his wife Hope Onome Oghelemu for alleged investment fraud.

The duo are being prosecuted alongside two companies, on a seven-count charge, bordering on obtaining money by false pretence, conversion of funds and money laundering to the tune of N740 million.

According to the EFCC, the offence is contrary to Section 18(2)(b) of the Money Laundering Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 and punishment under Section 18(4) of the same Act.

The defendants were arraigned on February 16, 2026.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Monday, the prosecuting EFCC lawyer, O.S Ujam, informed the court that the prosecution team was ready to proceed with the trials and to present three witnesses in court.

On his part, the defence lawyer , T.O. Ochayi, informed the court that he was unprepared for the commencement of the trial, having been briefed on the matter just a day before and taking over only today.

He said, “We are not ready, my lord. I am sorry my lord. I just came into this matter today, I was not the counsel before now. I am not ready for trial. I was briefed yesterday, I would like this matter to proceed only if I have the motion for bail.”

Responding, Ujam informed the court that the prosecution team was hearing such a response from the defence for the first time, frowning at the fact that the prosecution was not given any prior notice for the change in counsel. He further informed the court that the three prosecution witnesses present in court were elderly and have been in court since morning.

He said, “We are just hearing this, this morning. No notice was given to us. I am not opposed to the adjournment, however, we urge the court to slate the matter for definite hearing. We have three witnesses that came from afar and elderly. They have been in court since morning.”

Justice Akpan, thereafter, adjourned the matter till June 22, and July 1 and 2, 2026 for definite hearing.

Investigation by the EFCC revealed that the first and second defendants induced unsuspecting members of the public into paying money into Oghelemu’s account or that of Onome Global Market Resources Limited on the false pretence that it was for procurement and exportation of “bitter kola nuts” and “red kola nuts” to Hong Kong, China and Indonesia after which they would be paid a huge Return on Investment (RoI).

But it turned out that the investors neither got RoI, nor their investment sums back.