Naira Marley’s trial over cybercrime charges hits snag as court fails to sit

By Sodiq Adelakun

The trial of Nigerian musician Naira Marley, who is facing charges of cyber crime, was delayed on Monday as the presiding judge was attending a conference.

The singer, whose real name is Azeez Fashola, is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The charges were brought against him on May 14, 2019.

Fashola, who sang the popular song: “Am I a yahoo boy,” was consequently arraigned on May 20, 2019 before Justice Nicholas Oweibo, but he pleaded not guilty.

The court had accordingly, granted him bail in the sum of two million naira, with two sureties in like sum.

Trial has since commenced in the case and is still ongoing. 

On Oct. 6, Justice Oweibo had issued a warrant for production of the defendant, following his absence from trial on the last date.

Oweibo’s order followed an application for a production warrant by the prosecution, Mrs Bilikisu Buhari.

Recall that the police in Lagos had detained Naira Marley and his associate, Sam Larry, in connection with the death of Nigerian artiste, Oladimeji Aloba, popularly known as “Mohbad.”

At the last adjourned date on Oct. 30, defence counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN) had informed the court that the defendant was still clearly absent from court in spite of the court’s order for his production.

The court had consequently adjourned the case until Nov. 13 and 30 for continuation of trial.

Trial will now continue on the next date Nov. 30.

According to the EFCC, the defendant committed the offences on different dates between Nov. 26, 2018 and Dec.11, 2018, as well as May 10, 2019.

The Commission alleged that Fashola and his accomplices conspired to use different Access Bank ATM cards to defraud their victims.

It alleged that the defendant used a bank credit card issued to another person, in a bid to obtain fraudulent financial gains.

The EFCC also said that the defendant possessed counterfeit credit cards belonging to different people, with intent to defraud which amounted to theft.

The alleged offences contravene the provisions of Sections 1 23 (1) (b), 27 (1) and 33(9) of Cyber Crime (Prohibition) Prevention Act, 2015