By | Ofonime Honesty
For nearly six years, Iniobong Okon Essien stood trial for an offence that could have sent him to prison for years.
He was the prime suspect in the alleged theft of 20 million Naira belonging to the Akwa Ibom State Judiciary. When judgment finally came on February 18, 2026, it was a victory for the embattled Mr. Essien who is a judiciary staff.
In a lengthy judgment that dissected the difference between criminal intent and administrative negligence, Justice Bassey B. Nkanang of the Akwa Ibom State High Court, Uyo Judicial Division, discharged and acquitted him.
The judgment, delivered in suit number HU/182C/2020, came nearly six years after the case was first filed on August 18, 2020, and almost exactly six years after the incident occurred on February 14, 2020.
Mr. Essien, an Accountant II with the Akwa Ibom State Judiciary, faced a two-count charge bordering on conspiracy to commit a felony, contrary to and punishable under Section 552 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Vol. 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, 2000; and stealing, contrary to and punishable under Section 408 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Vol. 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, 2000.
The charge alleged that the defendant, “alongside others now at large, on the 14th day of February, 2020, at the Judiciary Headquarters, Uyo Local Government Area, conspired to commit a felony, to wit: stealing, and did steal the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira), property of the Akwa Ibom State Judiciary.”
When trial commenced on November 2, 2021, the prosecution, led by Akaninyene Akpan, Esq., a Chief State Counsel in the Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Justice, painted a picture of sabotage.
The prosecution’s case hinged on a timeline of events surrounding February 13 and 14, 2020.
According to the first prosecution witness, Mrs. Udofot Etukudo, the then Chief Accountant of the Judiciary, two cheques were prepared and approved for the withdrawal of N20 million from Zenith Bank Plc. The money was meant for legitimate Judiciary expenses.
Mrs. Etukudo testified that around 11:00 am on February 13, 2020, approval was given for the defendant to apply for funds to hire a bullion van and pay for police escorts to convey the money safely. She tendered Exhibit 1, a letter written by the defendant to the Acting Chief Registrar applying for those funds, which bore approval stamps.
Crucially, Mrs. Etukudo told the court that the defendant did not go to the bank on February 13, despite having the cheques and the approval. He offered no reasonable excuse for the delay, she said.
The following day, February 14, Mr. Essien reportedly went to the bank alone, using his private black Toyota Camry with registration number LAGOS TC 127 KJA—a fact captured in Exhibit 5, a photograph tendered by the prosecution showing the defendant standing beside the car.
The prosecution argued that by using a private saloon car to convey N20 million in cash, in flagrant violation of Treasury Circular No. 2 of 2010 on conveying bulk cash, the defendant set the stage for the theft.
The second prosecution witness, Dr. Godwin Dickson Akpan, the then Chief Security Officer of the Judiciary, testified that upon the defendant’s return to the Judiciary Headquarters, the money, kept in the boot of the car, was discovered missing. He told the court that the car showed no signs of forced entry, and all four doors and the boot were intact.
The prosecution prayed the court to agree that the defendant, either personally or through collaborators, removed the money and staged a fake theft.
Over the course of the trial, the following exhibits were tendered and admitted: the defendant’s letter applying for funds to convey cash, dated February 13, 2020; extrajudicial statement of Godwin Dickson Akpan, made at the Anti-Robbery Squad, dated February 18, 2020; extrajudicial statement of Iniobong Okon Essien, made at ‘A’ Division Police Station, Uyo, dated February 14, 2020; extrajudicial statement of Iniobong Okon Essien, made at the Anti-Robbery Squad, dated February 18, 2020; photograph of the defendant’s black Toyota Camry (LAGOS TC 127 KJA) with him standing beside it; certificate of Compliance with the Evidence Act, executed by Sergeant Godwin Ekpenyong, dated February 20, 2020; and a police Investigation Report by Sergeant Godwin Ekpenyong, dated February 20, 2020.
Other exhibits included a query issued to the defendant by Ms. Roseline U. Etukudo, Head of Finance Directorate, dated February 14, 2020; the defendant’s reply to the query, addressed to the Acting Chief Registrar, dated March 9, 2020; witness summons issued to Ime Itohowo Inim, dated March 29, 2023; and a witness summons issued to Udeme Udo Obong, dated March 24, 2023.
The defence, led by Dominic Okon, Esq., with Oscar Sylvanus, Amarachi Mba, and Blessing Bassey, called three witnesses, including the defendant.
Mr. Essien testified that he used his personal car because the approved sum of 50,000 Naira was not madr available to pay for a bullion van.
He denied any involvement in the theft and insisted he was a victim of circumstance.
But the most significant testimony came from two defence witnesses who were staff of the Judiciary.
DW2, Ime Itohowo Inim, a Clerical Officer attached to the Research Unit, told the court that on the day of the incident, she saw some men—whom she did not recognize—carrying bags from the boot of the defendant’s car. She said she assumed they were assigned to offload the vehicle and thought nothing of it until the alarm was raised.
DW3, Udeme Udo Obong, of the Internal Audit Unit, corroborated this account. He testified that he also saw unknown persons removing bags from the vehicle before the defendant raised any alarm about a theft.
The prosecution neither discredited their testimony, nor did they call any witness to rebut the claim that unknown persons were seen with the bags.
After the trial concluded on June 18, 2025, both counsel filed their final written addresses.
In the defence final written address filed on September 22, 2025, Barr. Dominic Okon formulated a sole issue for determination: “Whether the prosecution has proved the offences of conspiracy and stealing against the defendant to secure his conviction and sentence.”
He argued that the prosecution failed to establish fraudulent intent, citing Section 392(1) of the Criminal Code, contending that there was no eyewitness, no confessional statement, and no circumstantial evidence compelling enough to warrant a conviction. He described the evidence of prosecution witnesses as largely hearsay and urged the court to discharge his client.
In a response, filed on October 9, 2025, the prosecution counsel, Barr. Akpan, formulated this issue: “Whether the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof and proven the two counts charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.”
He cited ADEPETU v. STATE (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 565) 185 to argue that conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. He pointed to the defendant’s unusual conduct—the delay, the use of a private car, the intact condition of the vehicle after the alleged theft—as facts from which the court should logically infer guilt.
He also cited Section 356 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 39, Vol. 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 (which re-enacted the old Section 408), arguing that the value of the stolen money (N20 million) was well above the N10,000 threshold required to establish the offence.
Delivering judgment on February 18, 2026, Justice Nkanang began by adopting the issue formulated by the defence as the sole issue for determination.
He noted that the first two ingredients of the offence of stealing (ownership of the property and the property being capable of being stolen) were not in dispute. The only question was whether the defendant was responsible for fraudulently taking or converting the money.
The judge reviewed the three ways of proving a crime: eyewitness account, confessional statement, and circumstantial evidence. He noted that there was no eyewitness and no confession, leaving the prosecution to rely on circumstantial evidence.
Citing ADA CHINYERE NDUKWU v. THE STATE (2022) LPELR-58440(CA) , the judge stated: “Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to ground a conviction, must be complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant and no one else did the deed.”
He also cited WILLIAM OMOKARO v. THE STATE (2025) LPELR-81202(SC) and KANJI NERE v. THE STATE (2025) LPELR-82093(SC) , which established that circumstantial evidence must be cogent and incapable of explanation by any other hypothesis than guilt.
The judge then turned to the testimony of DW2 and DW3. Their evidence that unknown persons were seen removing bags from the car, he said, introduced a material doubt.
“There is no evidence whatsoever, direct or circumstantial, from which the court could infer that the defendant planted those men.
“Drawing from the evidence and the inference of the possibility that some other person(s), completely unconnected with the defendant, could have stolen the money, the court finds that the sum of money could have been stolen independent of the act, intent, and will of the defendant,” he declared.
The judge further cited KAZEEM ORIYOMI SODIQ v. THE STATE (2020) LPELR-49760(CA) , where the Court of Appeal held: “The law is settled that if there are any doubts arising from the case of the prosecution as to the guilt of the accused, such doubt will be resolved in favour of the accused. Suspicion remains suspicion and cannot graduate to convincing evidence no matter how grave.”
Regarding Count One, the judge cited FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. DR. ANGELA UWAKWEM & ORS (2025) LPELR-81132(SC), which holds that conspiracy is distinct from the substantive offence.
However, he also cited OLUKAYODE ADEOYE v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2019) LPELR-47299(CA), which states that an acquittal on the substantive offence can make it unreasonable to convict on conspiracy, especially without independent evidence.
“Having found that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of stealing, and there being no independent evidence of an agreement to commit the illegal act, the charge of conspiracy cannot be sustained,” the judge held.
Justice Nkanang resolved the sole issue in favour of the defence and entered a verdict of discharge and acquittal on both counts.
But he added a caveat: “the recklessness and negligence of the defendant, arising from his conduct—failing to go to the bank on the day the cheques were issued, using his personal car to convey such a huge amount despite approval for security, leaving bags of money in his car—would certainly attract administrative or disciplinary action. But it does not amount to the criminal intent required to prove the offence of stealing.”
Speaking to newsmen shortly after the judgment, the defence counsel, Barr. Dominic Okon, described the verdict as “a triumph of justice and a reaffirmation that criminal liability cannot be built on suspicion alone.”
He added: “the court has rightly drawn the line between negligence and criminal intent. Our client can now move on with his life, though we acknowledge the court’s observation about administrative consequences.”
The prosecution counsel, Barr. Akaninyene Akpan, was not available for a comment, when approached.
The case was closely watched by legal practitioners and civil society organizations and the media.
