The federal high court, Abuja, on Tuesday, 10th March 2026, acquitted and discharged Isabella Mimie Oshodin and Bob Oshodin organization ltd. of all charges in a high-profile money laundering case.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendants faced twenty-five counts, including conspiracy to commit money laundering, transferring large sums of money allegedly derived from unlawful acts, and possession of funds linked to criminal breach of trust.
The prosecution also alleged that some of the funds were used to purchase properties in the United States.
Central to the case was the alleged misappropriation of funds by Col. Sambo Dasuki, former national security adviser, which the prosecution argued formed the basis of the money laundering charges.
In its judgment, the court noted that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the defendants’ knowledge or intent regarding any unlawful activities.
Key statements from Oshodin were ruled inadmissible because they were neither electronically recorded nor taken in the presence of her legal counsel, in violation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
The court further observed that the prosecution did not produce concrete documents showing that funds were transferred to foreign accounts or used to acquire the cited properties.
The absence of Col. Dasuki’s testimony also weakened the prosecution’s case.
During the trial, Oshodin testified that her husband, Robert Oshodin, was seriously ill and living in the United States.
She explained that she became involved only after being contacted by a consultant.
She maintained that the payments received were for legitimate business activities, including the sale of the family’s furniture manufacturing company and youth training programs in the Niger Delta and South-South regions.
She further noted that she had refunded N180 million to the government following inquiries from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and emphasised that the company’s dealings were with the Presidential Amnesty Office, not directly with the National Security Adviser.
The defense, led by Adegboyega Awomolo SAN with Olajide Olaleye Kumuyi Esq., argued that the prosecution failed to establish the source of the funds as illicit and that the statements they relied upon were inadmissible.
Counsel also highlighted the absence of critical witnesses from the Amnesty Programme whose testimony could have clarified the legality of the transactions.
The prosecution, represented by H.M. Mohammed Esq., maintained that evidence from several witnesses indicated that the defendants were associates of Col. Dasuki and received significant sums into their accounts following his appointment as NSA.
They argued that the funds were laundered into foreign accounts and used to buy properties in the United States.
The court emphasised that criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that every element of the offence must be established.
Citing precedents such as Olayiwola v. State (2021), Momodu v. State (2023), and Adekoya v. State (2017), it reiterated that defendants are presumed innocent, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving all essential elements of the offence.
The court held “The prosecution has an onerous task to prove the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. Where it fails to do so, all doubts are resolved in favour of the defendant.
“The evidence, whether oral or documentary, must establish the ingredients of the offence charged in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. Any doubt regarding any element of the alleged offence must be resolved in favour of the defendant, except where it relates to trivial conjectures which do not affect the substance of the case.”
The court further concluded that the central issue of whether the funds were derived from an illicit source was not proven.
The defendants provided credible evidence showing that the monies were lawfully obtained from the Office of the national security adviser for the sale of Bob Oshodin Organization Ltd’s factory.
“In final analysis, the prosecution’s evidence is speculative and fails to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt. In contrast, the evidence of DW1 [defendant witness] was clear, cogent, and corroborated by other evidence.
“Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. All defendants are hereby discharged and acquitted of all counts,” the court ruled.
