Nigerian Couple To Be Arraigned Monday In N100m Investment Dispute With Justice Mabel Segun-Bello

A Nigerian couple, Mr. Adetunji Conde and Mrs. Ajoke Amudat Conde, are set to face arraignment on Monday, April 14, 2025, at 9:00 AM in Court 18, Magistrate Court, Wuse Zone 2, over a criminal case tied to a N100 million investment dispute with Federal High Court Justice Mabel Segun-Bello.

The Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, is listed as the plaintiff, with the Condes as defendants, in a case that has sparked allegations of judicial overreach, unlawful criminalization, and abuse of police power.

The dispute centers on a N100 million investment allegedly made by Justice Segun-Bello through intermediaries Tobi Bolarin and Gbenga Ekundayo into the couple’s company, Elizabeth and Esther Nig. Ltd. According to court documents the charges involve accusations of misappropriation and breach of trust. A hearing notice stipulates that parties must present all relevant evidence, including witnesses and documents, to support or challenge claims, and that any postponement requests must be backed by factual proof.

The Condes, represented by prominent human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), have vehemently denied wrongdoing, asserting that the matter is a civil contractual dispute improperly escalated into a criminal case. In a petition to the Inspector General of Police, the couple accused Justice Segun-Bello, Bolarin, and Ekundayo of manipulating law enforcement to intimidate and oppress them. “Despite this matter being purely a civil contractual dispute, Justice Mabel Segun-Bello… has weaponized the police,” the petition stated, claiming the investment was governed by clear agreements that they did not breach.

Falana argued that criminalizing contractual disputes contravenes Supreme Court precedent, calling the prosecution “an act of impunity” that undermines public trust in law enforcement. He further alleged that Segun-Bello resorted to coercion rather than pursuing civil remedies, noting, “The use of state resources for private vendettas must be sanctioned.”

A source familiar with the case, speaking to SaharaReporters, claimed Segun-Bello orchestrated the arraignment through magistrates linked to her, alleging the investment was part of a Ponzi scheme. However, the source did not provide evidence to substantiate the Ponzi claim, which remains unverified.

The petition also highlighted the wrongful inclusion of Mrs. Conde, who reportedly had no executive role in the business. “Mrs. Ajoke Amudat Conde was unlawfully arrested, detained, and charged, constituting a clear violation of her constitutional rights,” it stated, demanding her immediate discharge and the withdrawal of charges against Mr. Conde. The couple claimed they endured over a month of detention, causing “irreparable harm” to their lives and families.

Further escalating concerns, the Condes requested a case reassignment, citing fears of judicial bias. In letters to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, the Chief Registrar, and the Director of Magistracy, they expressed distrust in the current magistrate, pointing to troubling developments. They noted that the original magistrate in Court 14 withdrew after granting bail, as the case was initially filed in Court 18 with a remand order. The couple alleged that bail conditions were unfavorable to Segun-Bello, and that sureties faced potential blackmail to withdraw under pressure from Court 18’s magistrate.

The petition accused Segun-Bello of demanding a “one-sided liquidation agreement” outside court processes, describing it as “subtle blackmail.” It claimed her influence transformed a civil matter into a criminal one, with the judge allegedly boasting she “ran the Magistrate Court before and her bidding would be carried out.” The Condes further alleged that Segun-Bello vowed to see them re-imprisoned by 2025, intensifying fears of an unfair trial. They also claimed third parties were intimidated, amplifying their sense of victimization.

At the heart of the dispute, the couple stated, was a business agreement in which Mr. Conde committed to repaying the investment within a year. They accused Segun-Bello and her associates of disregarding the agreement’s terms, demanding immediate repayment, and using legal channels to oppress rather than seek justice. “Influence, rather than law, dictates judicial outcomes,” the petition warned, urging reassignment to a new magistrate to ensure impartiality.