Court Decides on Former Skye Bank Chairman Ayeni’s Bail Request – May 25

Justice Jude Onwuzuruike of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Apo, Abuja, will decide on May 25 whether to grant bail to former Skye Bank Plc chairman Tunde Ayeni, who is on trial for alleged corruption.

The judge set the ruling date after hearing arguments from the parties’ lawyers.

Ayeni faces a 17‑count indictment for an alleged N15.6 billion fraud, brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

During the resumed trial, Ayeni’s lawyer, Dele Adesina, SAN, requested that the court approve bail, noting that the EFCC had previously granted the defendant administrative bail. He argued that the bail was about to be finalized when the court issued a remand order, and that the alleged offence is a bail‑eligible one. He also cited the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Prosecution counsel G.I. Inde opposed the application, citing the grounds in the prosecution’s counter‑affidavit dated May 7. “We also filed a further counter‑affidavit of nine paragraphs deposed to by Halimat Kabir, an EFCC officer. We relied on all deposition. We adopt the written address as our oral submission in praying your lordship to refuse the bail application,” said Inde.

After hearing both sides, Justice Onwuzuruike adjourned the case to May 25 for a ruling.

A similar criminal charge was brought against Ayeni and Timothy Oguntayo in 2019, in which both pleaded not guilty to all counts.

In that earlier trial before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Ayeni’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that the EFCC‑investigated transactions were fundamentally commercial and banking in nature rather than criminal diversions of funds. He claimed that the bank and the duo had a pre‑existing arrangement, and that approval from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had been sought and obtained by Skye Bank’s management.

Olanipekun said the dispute “arose out of business transactions that went sour” and stressed that the issues could be resolved amicably. He maintained that the funds in question were not unlawfully diverted but were part of legitimate banking arrangements carried out in the ordinary course of the bank’s operations.

The defence also challenged the EFCC’s attempt to criminalise what it described as commercial decisions made within the framework of legitimate banking business.

Eventually, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, which the court was informed about. The settlement terms, which had already been approved by the Central Bank of Nigeria before the EFCC investigation began, were presented at the final sitting.

Justice Ojukwu adopted the settlement terms as the court’s judgment, thereby formally concluding the matter.