Nigeria’s federal government has filed a Notice of Appeal before the Supreme Court of challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria delivered on January 30, 2026, which granted bail to Lagos socialite Fred Ajudua.
The appeal arises from Charge No. ID/16C/2025 and Appeal No. CA/LAG/1319/2025, and the government is seeking to overturn the entire ruling of the Court of Appeal and restore the earlier decision of the trial court that denied bail and ordered that the Respondent remain in custody.
Ajudua, 65, is standing trial for alleged conspiracy, obtaining money under false pretences, forgery, and use of forged documents under Lagos State law.
The allegations are linked to a $1.043 million advance-fee fraud, a case that dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The case, which began in 2005 before Justice M. O. Obadina, has faced multiple delays, reportedly due to various legal tactics employed by the defendant.
He applied for bail on July 22, 2025, citing worsening health and submitted medical reports confirming chronic kidney disease and the need for further treatment.
However, the trial court refused bail, ruling that the Supreme Court had already revoked his bail and that his medical condition did not justify releasing him, although the Court of Appeal later disagreed.
In its Notice of Appeal dated February 20, 2026 and filed on February 23, 2026, the government stated that it was dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal and was appealing on multiple grounds.
The government, through its counsel, argued that the Court of Appeal erred when it overruled its preliminary objection challenging the competence of Ajudua’s appeal and made findings that, according to the government, misrepresented the effect of an earlier Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 9, 2025.
The Notice of Appeal was filed by counsel including S. K. Atteh, T. J. Banjo, and P. I. Ugama of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The Respondent, Ajudua, was listed through his counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, and Allens Agbaka of Olalekan Ojo (SAN) & Co, Comfort Chambers, Ribadu Street, Ikoyi, Lagos.
The Court of Appeal had stated that it could not find any order in that Supreme Court judgment directing that Ajudua be detained pending the conclusion of his trial and also stated that counsel had been economical with the truth in presenting the Supreme Court’s findings.
The government rejected this interpretation and maintained that the Supreme Court had clearly resolved the issue of bail.
The government relied heavily on a portion of the Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice Chioma Egondu Nwosu–Iheme, which explained that the appeal had been determined on jurisdiction and that the issue of bail was inseparable from that appeal.
The judgment described the issue of bail as being like a “Siamese twin” with the appeal and stated that both must die together once the appeal failed.
According to the government, the meaning of those words was that the issue of bail had been conclusively determined and could not be revived or reconsidered by any lower court.
The government argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke bail and remit the case for speedy trial meant that Ajudua was to remain in custody and that no court below the Supreme Court had the authority to grant bail again.
“To severe the issue of bail from this appeal which failed woefully is tantamount to making a mockery or caricature of a very serious business,” the applicant’s lawyers argued.
Govt Alleges Appeal Court Violated Supreme Court Orders
The government further argued that the Court of Appeal violated Sections 235 and 275(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which establish the finality of Supreme Court decisions and bind lower courts to follow them.
It stated that the enrolled order of the Supreme Court dated June 3, 2025, signed by Justice Uwani Musa Abba Aji, who presided over the panel, clearly directed that Ajudua be remanded in prison custody and that the trial should continue and be concluded within the shortest possible time.
The government argued that this order was clear and unambiguous and that the Court of Appeal failed to implement and enforce it.
The government also argued that the Court of Appeal acted improperly by making pronouncements suggesting that the Supreme Court did not decide certain issues because it determined the appeal on jurisdiction.
The government stated that by doing so, the Court of Appeal effectively reviewed and reinterpreted a Supreme Court decision, which it had no authority to do. It argued that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to review, overturn, or revisit any decision of the Supreme Court and that its actions amounted to sitting on appeal over the apex court.
“The Court of Appeal was wrong in law and its judgment violated the provisions of sections 275(1) and 235 of 1999 Constitution (as amended) by subsequent grant bail to the Respondent after the Supreme Court has revoked the bail, and held that the bail issue is dead and buried, and remitted the case to the trial court for speedy trial and determination,” the government lawyers said.
“This position is firmly rooted in the principles of judicial hierarchy, stare decisis, and the finality of the Supreme Court’s decisions, which the Court of Appeal and the trial Court are bound to follow.”
Govt Opposes Case Transfer, Questions Medical Grounds For Bail
Another issue raised by the government concerned the question of transferring the case to another judge for trial.
The government stated that this issue had not been raised at the trial court and argued that raising it at the appellate level was improper. The government also argued that transferring the case to another judge would undermine the Supreme Court’s order for speedy trial and determination and would contradict the clear directive given by the apex court when it remitted the case.
The government also challenged the Court of Appeal’s reliance on medical grounds as justification for granting bail. It argued that the Court of Appeal wrongly treated a medical report dated November 19, 2025, as evidence of changed circumstances.
The government stated that Ajudua had been diagnosed with kidney-related illness since 1987 and argued that this condition had been used repeatedly since 2005 as a reason to avoid trial.
The government also alleged that a consultant, Dr. A. J. Adewumi, issued medical reports on November 19 and November 27, 2025, which contained the same content but were used for different purposes, including explaining Ajudua’s absence from court. The government argued that these reports did not constitute new or changed circumstances that justified granting bail.
“That the Hon Justices of the Court of Appeal failed to consider the fact that the Consultant that issued the Medical report Dr. A. J. Adewumi, FMCP had been manipulating the report as reflected in the report dated 19th November, 2025 when the Respondent was in Court for trial and the report dated 27th of November, 2025 by the same Consultant which was the report used as excuse for the Respondent not to be present in Court on 28th of November, 2025,” the applicant’s lawyers argued.
“The two reports contained the same content.”
The government further argued that the Court of Appeal failed to consider the effect of previous bail granted to Ajudua in another charge in 2014.
According to the government, despite being granted bail in that earlier case, only one witness had been called, which demonstrated that granting bail would frustrate the Supreme Court’s directive for speedy trial. The government argued that granting bail would undermine the purpose of the Supreme Court’s order and delay the resolution of the case.
In its appeal, the government stated that the ruling of the Court of Appeal was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence or the enrolled orders of the Supreme Court.
It asked the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, revoke the bail granted by the Court of Appeal on January 30, 2026, and restore the ruling of the trial court delivered on November 20, 2025, which denied bail. The government also requested any further orders that the Supreme Court may consider appropriate in the circumstance
