On Monday, September 22, 2025, the trial of Gabriel Suswam, the former governor of Benue State, and his erstwhile Commissioner of Finance, Omodachi Okolobia, before Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja hit yet another roadblock. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting the duo on an amended 11-count charge, accusing them of diverting N3.1 billion, funds allegedly misappropriated from the proceeds of the sale of Benue State’s shares held through the Benue Investment and Property Company Limited. The transactions in question were reportedly facilitated through Elixir Securities Limited and Elixir Investment Partners Limited. The latest delay in the trial stemmed from the defense’s inability to commence its case, prompting a request for a three-week adjournment that sparked heated exchanges in court.
Background of the Case
Gabriel Suswam, who served as Benue State governor from 2007 to 2015, has been embroiled in this legal battle for over a decade. The charges against him and Okolobia revolve around allegations of financial misconduct during his tenure. The EFCC claims that the N3.1 billion in question was part of the proceeds from the sale of state-owned shares, which were meant to benefit the people of Benue but were allegedly siphoned off for personal gain. The case is one of many high-profile corruption trials in Nigeria, where former public officials face scrutiny for their handling of public funds.
The EFCC, Nigeria’s foremost anti-corruption agency, has been relentless in pursuing cases of financial malfeasance, particularly against former governors and public officeholders. The agency’s mandate is to investigate and prosecute economic crimes, including money laundering, fraud, and misappropriation of public funds. Suswam’s case is emblematic of the challenges the EFCC faces in securing convictions, as legal proceedings often drag on for years due to adjournments, appeals, and other procedural delays.
The No-Case Submission and Its Dismissal
On Wednesday, July 23, 2025, Justice Peter Lifu dismissed a no-case submission filed by Suswam’s legal team. A no-case submission is a legal maneuver in which the defense argues that the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence to warrant a continuation of the trial. If successful, such a motion can lead to the dismissal of charges without the defendant having to present a defense. In this instance, Suswam’s counsel, led by J.B. Daudu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that the EFCC’s case lacked the necessary evidence to proceed.
However, Justice Lifu ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, meaning there was enough evidence to require Suswam and Okolobia to answer the charges. The judge ordered the defendants to commence their defense, setting the stage for the proceedings scheduled for September 22, 2025. The dismissal of the no-case submission was a significant setback for Suswam, who had hoped to avoid a full trial.
The Stalled Proceedings of September 22, 2025
When the case was called on Monday, expectations were high that Suswam would begin presenting his defense. However, the former governor’s legal team, led by Daudu, requested a three-week adjournment, citing two primary reasons. First, Daudu informed the court that one of Suswam’s lawyers, Chenelu Ogbozor, was currently hospitalized, which had hampered their preparations. Second, he revealed that an appeal had been filed against Justice Lifu’s ruling on the no-case submission, urging the court to suspend proceedings until the Court of Appeal could rule on the matter.
Daudu’s request for an adjournment was met with strong opposition from the prosecution, represented by A.O. Atolagbe. The prosecution argued that the defense had ample time to prepare, pointing out that the court’s annual recess, which lasted over two months, provided sufficient opportunity for Suswam’s team to ready their case. Atolagbe emphasized the protracted nature of the trial, noting that it had been ongoing for over a decade. “This case has been up for 10 years, and they have had more than 10 years to prepare for defense,” he argued, urging the court to reject the adjournment request.
Atolagbe further contended that the trial court was not obligated to halt proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal unless the Court of Appeal issued a specific ruling or set a date for one. “We cannot wait for the Court of Appeal and ask the trial court to wait. Except in a case where the Court of Appeal gives a date and gives a ruling, that is when this court can be bound by this,” he said. The prosecution described the defense’s request as unfair, arguing that the three-month court recess had given Suswam’s team more than enough time to prepare.
Justice Lifu’s Frustration and Adjournment
Justice Peter Lifu expressed frustration with the slow pace of the trial, lamenting that a case of this nature had dragged on for over a decade. In a candid moment, the judge shared his struggle to locate the case file earlier that day, revealing the disorganized state of the court’s records. “This morning when I came, I was searching for the file of this case, and I couldn’t find it. In fact, until now, I have not set my eyes on the application of the Court of Appeal you are talking about,” he said. He explained that he had to send court staff to the appeal registry to retrieve the file, only to find it “scattered and littered all over the place.” This administrative disarray, he noted, contributed to his late arrival in court.
Justice Lifu’s remarks underscored broader systemic issues in Nigeria’s judicial system, where delays, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and procedural complexities often hinder the timely resolution of cases. The judge’s frustration echoed the sentiments of many Nigerians who have grown weary of prolonged legal battles, particularly in high-profile corruption cases that involve significant sums of public funds.
Despite his reservations, Justice Lifu granted the defense’s request for an adjournment, rescheduling the matter for October 10, 2025, when Suswam is expected to commence his defense. The decision to grant the adjournment, while pragmatic, further prolongs a case that has already tested the patience of the court and the public.
The Broader Context: Corruption and Accountability in Nigeria
The trial of Gabriel Suswam is not an isolated case but part of a larger narrative of Nigeria’s struggle with corruption and the quest for accountability. Since the return to democratic governance in 1999, Nigeria has grappled with systemic corruption that has permeated various levels of government. The EFCC, established in 2003, has been at the forefront of efforts to combat financial crimes, but its success has been tempered by challenges such as prolonged trials, political interference, and legal loopholes exploited by well-resourced defendants.
Suswam’s case highlights the complexities of prosecuting high-profile figures in Nigeria. Former governors, in particular, often wield significant influence and resources, enabling them to mount robust legal defenses that can delay or derail prosecutions. The diversion of N3.1 billion, as alleged in this case, represents a significant loss to the people of Benue State, a region that has faced economic challenges and infrastructural deficits. Funds of this magnitude could have been used to improve education, healthcare, or agricultural development, areas where Benue has historically struggled.
The case also raises questions about the management of state-owned assets and the transparency of privatization processes. The sale of Benue State’s shares, facilitated through the Benue Investment and Property Company Limited, was intended to generate revenue for the state. However, the EFCC’s allegations suggest that the process was marred by irregularities, with funds allegedly diverted through private entities such as Elixir Securities Limited and Elixir Investment Partners Limited. This underscores the need for stronger oversight mechanisms to prevent the mismanagement of public assets.
Legal and Procedural Implications
The defense’s decision to appeal the dismissal of the no-case submission is a common tactic in Nigerian legal proceedings. By filing an appeal, defendants can delay the trial, hoping to secure a favorable ruling from a higher court or to buy time to strategize. However, as the prosecution pointed out, the trial court is not obligated to suspend proceedings unless the Court of Appeal issues a specific directive. This legal principle ensures that trials can proceed without being unduly stalled by interlocutory appeals, which are appeals filed before the final judgment in a case.
The hospitalization of one of Suswam’s lawyers, Chenelu Ogbozor, adds another layer of complexity to the case. While the court may grant adjournments in such circumstances, the prosecution’s argument that the defense had ample time to prepare during the court recess suggests that the delay could have been avoided with better planning. The interplay between the defense’s request and the prosecution’s opposition reflects the adversarial nature of legal proceedings, where each side seeks to advance its interests within the bounds of the law.
Justice Lifu’s decision to grant the adjournment, while understandable given the circumstances, highlights the delicate balance judges must strike between ensuring fairness and expediting justice. The judge’s comments about the disorganized state of court records also point to systemic issues that undermine the efficiency of Nigeria’s judiciary. The inability to promptly locate case files or appeals documents can lead to unnecessary delays, further eroding public confidence in the judicial system.
Public Reaction and Expectations
The prolonged nature of Suswam’s trial has drawn attention from the public and civil society organizations, many of whom view it as a test of Nigeria’s commitment to fighting corruption. In Benue State, where Suswam remains a prominent political figure, opinions are divided. Some see him as a victim of political persecution, while others believe the charges reflect a broader pattern of mismanagement during his tenure. The EFCC’s pursuit of the case has been praised by anti-corruption advocates, who argue that no one should be above the law, regardless of their status or influence.
However, the slow pace of the trial has fueled frustration among Nigerians who demand swift justice in corruption cases. The fact that the case has spanned over a decade raises questions about the effectiveness of the judicial system in delivering timely outcomes. For many, the adjournment to October 10, 2025, is yet another example of how legal technicalities can delay accountability, allowing defendants to evade justice for years.
The Road Ahead
As the trial moves toward its next hearing on October 10, 2025, all eyes will be on Suswam and his legal team as they prepare to present their defense. The former governor will have the opportunity to counter the EFCC’s allegations, potentially calling witnesses or presenting evidence to refute the charges. The outcome of the appeal filed against the no-case submission ruling will also be critical, as a favorable decision from the Court of Appeal could alter the course of the trial.
For the EFCC, the case represents an opportunity to demonstrate its ability to secure convictions in high-profile corruption cases. A successful prosecution would send a strong message about the agency’s commitment to holding public officials accountable. However, the agency must navigate the procedural hurdles and legal strategies employed by the defense, which could further prolong the case.
Conclusion
The trial of Gabriel Suswam and Omodachi Okolobia is a microcosm of Nigeria’s broader struggle with corruption and the challenges of ensuring accountability through the judicial system. The latest adjournment, while justified by the defense’s circumstances, underscores the systemic issues that plague high-profile cases, including bureaucratic inefficiencies and prolonged legal proceedings. As the case progresses, it will continue to serve as a litmus test for Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts and the judiciary’s ability to deliver justice in a timely manner.
The people of Benue State, and indeed all Nigerians, await the resolution of this case, hoping for an outcome that upholds the principles of transparency, accountability, and justice. Whether Suswam will be able to clear his name or face the consequences of the allegations remains to be seen, but the journey to that verdict will undoubtedly be closely watched.