Mr Bode Olanipekun (SAN) told the court that he was protesting because the charge had not been served on Otudeko and two others charged along with him.
The 13-count charge was preferred by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Otudeko, a former Managing Director of First Bank Plc., Olabisi Onasanya; and a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo.
They were charged alongside a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.
EFCC alleged in the charge marked FHC/L/20C/2025 that the defendants obtained the sum from First Bank under false pretences.
When the case was called on Monday, Mr Olumide Fusika (SAN), also announced appearance for Onasanya, and informed the court that he had a copy of the charge.
Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) appeared for Akintayo while Mr Adeogun Philips (SAN) announced appearance for the firm.
Philips also informed the court that his appearance was in protest, saying that his client was not served any charge.
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke then asked all defence counsel if their clients had not been served the charge.
In response, Olanipekun submitted that, on Jan. 17, the media was agog with headlines indicating that the defendants were to be arraigned on Monday.
He described as unfair, giving out of such information when no charge had been formally served on them.
Prosecution counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), told the court that unsuccessful efforts were made to effect service on the defendants.
Oyedepo said that prosecution had a motion for substituted service of the charge at the last known addresses of the defendants.
He moved the motion but the second defence counsel informed the court that he was willing to undertake service of the charge for his client.
Following a directive by the court, the prosecution counsel gave a copy of the charge to Fusika.
The court, consequently, adjourned the case until Feb. 13 for arraignment of the defendants.
According to EFCC, the defendants obtained the sum in tranches in 2013 and 2014 in Lagos State.
The anti-graft agency added that the defendants altered a document to deceive the bank.
The alleged offences contravene Section 8(a) of Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act of 2006 and Section 15 (2), 15(3) and 18(c) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011
They also contravene Section 3(6) of the Miscellanous Offences Act, 2004. (NAN)
