…Says Supreme Court Did not bar fresh application
The Court of Appeal in Yola has granted bail to businessman Fred Ajudua, setting aside a November 2025 decision of the Lagos State High Court which refused him pre-trial release.
In a judgement delivered on 30 January, Frederick Oho, who read the lead decision of the three-member panel, held that the trial court misapplied a previous Supreme Court ruling in denying the defendant bail.
Other members of the panel, Olusumbo Goodluck and Abdulazeez Waziri, consented.
The judgement appears to run counter to last year’s decision of the Supreme Court on Mr Ajudua’s bail, but the Court of Appeal justices explained that the Lagos High Court judge who denied the defendant bail got the Supreme Court’s ruling wrong.
Mr Ajudua, 65, is standing trial on charges of conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, forgery and uttering forged documents under Sections 516, 419 and 467(2) of the Criminal Code, Laws of Lagos State.
He had applied for bail before the Lagos High Court on 22 July 2025, citing deteriorating health and the need for specialised medical care.
In support of his application, he tendered medical reports dated 29 July and 19 November 2025 from A.J. Adewunmi, a consultant physician and nephrologist at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH).
The reports indicated that he suffered from chronic kidney disease, had a solitary kidney, and required further investigations, including a possible kidney biopsy and cholecystectomy.
The trial court refused bail, holding that the Supreme Court’s 9 May 2025 judgement — which allowed an earlier appeal by the prosecution and revoked his previous bail — foreclosed any fresh application.
The court also held that his medical condition did not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting release.
But the Court of Appeal disagreed.
Mr Oho held that the lower court relied on extraneous considerations and misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting that the Supreme Court did not expressly prohibit Mr Ajudua from filing a fresh bail application.
“The affidavit evidence and medical reports disclosed special and exceptional circumstances which the trial court ought to have relied upon,” the appellate court held.
It added that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice, taking into account all relevant materials placed before the court, including an applicant’s health condition.
The appellate court also dismissed preliminary objections filed by EFCC, which sought the striking out of the appeal as incompetent and to prevent the transfer of the case for a trial de novo before another judge.
The court held that the objections lacked merit, noting that the Supreme Court had not determined the substantive issue of bail nor barred a retrial before a different judge.
Mr Ajudua’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olalekan Ojo, argued that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion judicially and wrongly imported conclusions into the Supreme Court’s decision.
Lawyer for the prosecuiton — S.K. Atteh, T.J. Banjo and Patrick Igbi Ugama — maintained that the defendant’s health claims were exaggerated and that the Supreme Court’s ruling justified his continued detention.
Concurring opinions
In a concurring opinion, Ms Goodluck agreed entirely with the lead ruling, stating that discretion cannot be subject to rigid rules, but must be guided by common sense and the facts placed before the court.
She held that the trial court ought not to have ignored the uncontroverted medical evidence regarding the appellant’s deteriorating health, particularly his chronic kidney disease compounded by having a solitary kidney.
Granting bail, she observed, would enable him to address his critical medical condition and adequately prepare his defence, noting that it is expedient for an accused person to be alive and medically stable to exercise his constitutional right.
(Premium Times)
