The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed criminal charges against the Managing Director of Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL), Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, over an investment dispute that is also the subject of parallel civil proceedings in Mauritius, highlighting the increasingly blurred line between commercial disagreements and criminal prosecution in Nigeria.
The case stems from a business relationship between Immanuel and investor Mr. Adebisi Adebutu, founder of R28 Holdings Ltd, over a $1.5 million investment and a disputed shareholding arrangement in IIHL.
On March 11, 2026, the EFCC arraigned Immanuel and IIHL before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja on two counts bordering on alleged obtaining by false pretence and forgery involving the investment.
According to the prosecution, Immanuel induced Adebutu and R28 Holdings to invest $1.5 million between April 2022 and October 2023 for investments linked to Chappal Petroleum Development Company Limited, IIHL business development activities, and capital calls in Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited.
The EFCC further alleged that Immanuel promised the investors reimbursement of the funds, a development capital fee of $2.25 million, and a 22.4% equity stake in IIHL, representations it claims were false. The Commission also accused him of forging a term sheet allegedly bearing the signatures of Sheriff Oluwo and Olaniran Osatuyi to facilitate the transaction.
Immanuel pleaded not guilty to all charges.
His legal team argues that the dispute is fundamentally commercial and centres on the interpretation and enforcement of shareholder rights rather than criminal conduct. They also contend that similar proceedings initiated by Adebutu and R28 Holdings before the Supreme Court of Mauritius concern the same shareholding dispute but are being pursued solely as civil litigation.
According to court filings in Mauritius, R28 Holdings is seeking recognition of its claimed 22.4% shareholding in IIHL based on the same term sheet that forms part of the EFCC’s forgery allegations in Nigeria. Immanuel’s lawyers argue that this demonstrates the underlying dispute is contractual rather than criminal.
The defence has also questioned the timing of the EFCC’s actions, noting that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory had earlier granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the Commission from inviting, questioning, arresting or detaining Immanuel and Chappal Energies pending the determination of the suit before it.
Despite the order, the EFCC proceeded with Immanuel’s arrest and prosecution. The Commission also declared him wanted before his eventual court appearance, a move the defence says violated the subsisting court order.
In seeking bail, Immanuel’s lawyers argued that he is a senior executive in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry, poses no flight risk, and voluntarily appeared before the court after learning of the charges.
Justice Dada declined the initial bail application and preliminary objections on May 7, 2026. Subsequent applications for bail have also been unsuccessful, and Immanuel remains in custody while trial continues.
The case has renewed debate over the scope of the EFCC’s powers in commercial disputes.
Legal practitioners have long argued that while the Commission is empowered to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes, commercial disagreements arising from contracts, investments or shareholder arrangements should generally be resolved through civil litigation unless there is sufficient evidence of criminal intent.
Nigerian courts have, in several decisions, emphasized that breaches of contractual obligations do not automatically amount to criminal offences and that criminal investigative powers should not be used to enforce private commercial claims. The EFCC, however, has maintained that where evidence suggests fraud, false pretence or forgery, it has statutory authority to investigate and prosecute irrespective of any parallel civil proceedings.
The outcome of the IIHL case is likely to be closely watched by investors and corporate lawyers as it may further clarify the boundary between civil commercial disputes and criminal liability in Nigeria’s business environment.
