Alleged N36m fraud: Court to rule on Blessing CEO’s bail June 9

Justice D.I. Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, reserved ruling on the bail application filed by social media influencer Okoro Blessing Nkiruka (also known as Blessing CEO) until June 9, 2026. She is currently on trial facing allegations of a N36 million fraud.

The defendant is charged with two counts by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 1 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), concerning obtaining money by false pretenses and stealing, amounting to N36 million.

During the bail application hearing, the defendant’s counsel, P.I. Nwafuru, requested that the court grant bail on the most lenient terms possible. In opposition, prosecution counsel S.I. Suleiman informed the court that the EFCC had submitted a 28-paragraph counter-affidavit, signed by the investigating officer Bufa Regina Okangbe, on May 29, 2026.

“We rely on all the statements and exhibits contained in the counter-affidavit. At one point during the investigation, the defendant stopped responding to invitations sent by the Commission. We urge Your Lordship to deny the defense’s request and instead order an expedited hearing of the case,” Suleiman argued.

After considering the arguments from both parties, Justice Dipeolu reserved the ruling on the bail application until June 9, 2026.

Earlier in the proceedings, the prosecution presented its first witness, Bufa Regina Okangbe, an investigator with the EFCC. She detailed a series of bank transactions, property records, and witness statements that purportedly demonstrated how the defendant received N36 million from the petitioner for a property she did not own.

According to Okangbe, the Commission received a petition that was assigned to her team for investigation. She also stated that a Bank Verification Number (BVN) search conducted on the defendant revealed several bank accounts linked to her.

“Following this, letters of investigation were sent to the banks, while another letter was forwarded to the Lagos State Land Bureau to determine whether the property belonged to the defendant.

“The Commission also wrote to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) regarding the defendant’s company, Break or Makeup Limited.

“After analysing the defendant’s statements of account, she was invited to the Commission’s office and confronted with transactions traced to her and the petitioner.”

The witness further testified that the defendant made statements under caution in the presence of her lawyer and husband, admitting that the petitioner paid her the sum of N30 million.

Okangbe told the court that the response from the Lagos State Land Bureau revealed that the property in question did not belong to the defendant but to one Mr. Tunbosun Osobu.

ALSO READ: Meta is sending US Facebook users bonus payments in $725m settlement

“The Commission invited Mr. Osobu, who appeared with his lawyer and son. He confirmed that he had leased the property to the defendant for three years and that the lease expired in 2023 before it was renewed in 2025,” she stated.

The witness also informed the court that the petitioner submitted the lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the defendant, along with a tenancy acquisition form.

During the proceedings, prosecution counsel Suleiman sought to tender several documents through the witness, including the petition dated February 18, 2025; statements made by the defendant on December 10, 11, 12, and 16, 2025; the tenancy acquisition form submitted by the petitioner’s lawyer; the petitioner’s Zenith Bank statement of account in the name of Pipes and Barrel Limited; and the defendant’s GTBank and Access Bank statements.

However, defence counsel P.I. Nwafuru objected to the admissibility of the defendant’s statements, arguing that there was no endorsement indicating the presence of a legal practitioner during the recording of the statements. He also contended that no video recording of the statement-taking process had been produced before the court.

In response, Suleiman argued that the absence of a legal practitioner did not render an extra-judicial statement inadmissible.

“The law only requires the presence of a legal practitioner or any person chosen by the defendant. The statements are very key to this matter, and we urge My Lord to admit them in evidence,” he submitted.

On the issue of the bank statements, Suleiman maintained that all statements of account were accompanied by certificates of identification in compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act.

“The witness through whom the statements of account are being tendered is the investigating officer in this case, and the law recognises such authority as an exception to the hearsay rule,” he added.

In his ruling, Justice Dipeolu overruled the objections and admitted the documents into evidence as exhibits.

The judge held that: “Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) clearly provides that a suspect’s statement may be taken in the presence of a legal practitioner of his or her choice, a representative of the Legal Aid Council, a representative of a civil society organisation, or any other person chosen by the suspect.”

Continuing her testimony, Okangbe stated that the petitioner, through the company account, paid a total sum of N36 million to the defendant.

According to her, N25 million was transferred into the defendant’s GTBank account, while an additional N11 million was paid into her Access Bank account for the lease of a property located at No. 1B Tunbosun Osobu Street, Lekki, Lagos.

She further testified that an analysis of the defendant’s bank accounts revealed several subsequent transfers, including N8 million to Mr. and Mrs. Osobu, N1.9 million to Beauty City by Lekki, N11 million to Lina Uzoma Okoro, the defendant’s mother, and N15 million to Kenneth Emeka Onuora.

Under cross-examination, the witness stated that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, being the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, was not privy to any settlement arrangement allegedly entered into between the defendant and the petitioner.

She also informed the court that she was unaware of any attempt by the defendant to refund N24 million to the petitioner, as earlier claimed by the defence.

According to the witness, the petitioner had already commenced renovation work on the property before the owner, Mr. Tunbosun Osobu, allegedly appeared and ejected them from the premises.

Justice Dipeolu subsequently adjourned the matter until June 9, 2026 for ruling on bail application and June 22, 2026, for continuation of trial.