Court Adjourns Cybercrime Case Against Five Ex-Employees Of Tinubu-Linked Alpha-Beta Firm | Sahara Reporters
The adjournment followed a challenge by the defendants, who asked the court to determine their preliminary objection before they are arraigned on the charges.
The Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has adjourned until November 5, 2026, the alleged cybercrime case against five former employees of Alpha-Beta Consulting LLP, a company long linked to President Bola Tinubu.
The adjournment followed a challenge by the defendants, who asked the court to determine their preliminary objection before they are arraigned on the charges.
The case, marked FHC/L/190C/2026, is before Justice Luis Alagoa.
SaharaReporters reported in June 2026 that Alpha-Beta Consulting LLP had initiated criminal proceedings against the five former employees, including Segun Oluwasanmi, Media Officer of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Lagos Branch.
The five defendants are Olayinka Gafar Oladeji, Ajibade Olufemi Adeyemi, Olatoye Jimoh Bamidele, Oluwasegun Oluwasanmi and Okewale Akintunde Oluleke.
They are being prosecuted by the Federal Government over alleged cybercrime offences linked to publications by SaharaReporters concerning corruption allegations involving some officials of Alpha-Beta.
The defendants are facing five counts bordering on alleged conspiracy, cyberbullying, transmission of threatening messages, dissemination of online publications and the alleged creation of an anonymous Gmail account in connection with reports concerning Alpha-Beta and its Group Managing Director, Otunba Akinsanya Doherty.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, the defendants argued that their preliminary objection should be heard and determined before the court proceeds with their arraignment.
The prosecution opposed the application and urged the court to allow the arraignment to proceed.
Justice Alagoa subsequently directed both parties to file their respective arguments and counter-arguments on whether the preliminary objection should be determined before or after arraignment.
The preliminary objection was filed by the fourth defendant, Oluwasanmi, through his lawyer, Mobolaji Akintunde.
In the application, Oluwasanmi asked the court to dismiss or strike out the charge, arguing that the Federal High Court proceedings constituted an abuse of judicial process because substantially similar criminal proceedings were already pending before Magistrates’ Courts in Lagos State.
The defence cited Charge No. MIK/C/10/2026 – Commissioner of Police v. Oluwasegun Oluwasanmi & Anor and Charge No. MIK/C/14/2026 – Commissioner of Police v. Olayinka G. Oladeji & Ors.
According to the defence, the two cases were instituted on January 6 and February 3, 2026, respectively, while the Federal High Court charge was instituted on March 9, 2026.
The defence further told the court that the defendants appeared before the Magistrates’ Court on January 16, February 26, May 13, June 30 and July 23, while the Federal High Court case came up on July 2, when the Magistrates’ Court proceedings were still pending.
The defendants also alleged that they were not served with the Federal High Court charge until June 30, when they were served inside the Magistrates’ Court after they resisted an attempt to “abduct” them.
They argued that the earlier cases had neither been withdrawn nor discontinued and had not been finally determined when the Federal High Court proceedings were commenced.
The fourth defendant therefore asked the court to dismiss the charge in limine, arguing that its institution and continuation amounted to an abuse of judicial process.
The defence also asked the court to strike out counts relating to publications, electronic communications and factual transactions which it said had already formed the basis of the pending Magistrates’ Court proceedings.
A major part of the defence’s argument concerns a Gmail account identified as “[email protected].”
According to the defence, Count III of Charge No. MIK/C/14/2026 alleged that some of the defendants created the account and used it to send threats and demeaning messages to Doherty and other management staff of Alpha-Beta.
The defence argued that similar allegations were contained in the Federal High Court charge.
It specifically pointed to Counts II and VI of the Federal High Court charge, which allegedly concern the creation and use of the same Gmail address in connection with alleged threatening or bullying communications involving Doherty and Alpha-Beta.
The defence maintained that the similarities demonstrate substantial factual overlap between the Magistrates’ Court cases and the Federal High Court proceedings.
It argued that the prosecution should not be permitted to subject the defendants to simultaneous criminal proceedings in different courts over substantially the same publications, electronic communications and underlying complaint.
The defendants further contended that the fact that different statutory offences were cited in the separate cases did not, by itself, resolve the issue of abuse of process.
Citing judicial decisions including Saraki v. Kotoye, Amaefule v. State, Central Bank of Nigeria v. Ahmed, African Continental Bank Plc v. Nwaigwe, Ezeze v. State and Abacha v. State, the defence urged Justice Alagoa to consider the factual substance of the cases rather than only the statutory provisions cited.
The defence also argued that abuse of process could prevent an arraignment where the court finds that the prosecution amounts to an improper use of judicial process.
The motion was brought pursuant to provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The prosecution, however, opposed the defence’s position and maintained that the arraignment should proceed before the preliminary objection is determined.
Justice Alagoa did not immediately rule on whether the defendants should first be arraigned or whether the preliminary objection should be heard beforehand.
Instead, he directed both sides to file their arguments on the issue and adjourned the matter until November 5, 2026, when the issue is expected to come up for further consideration.