A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has postponed the arraignment of Taiwo Ibitola, a retired company director, and her firm, Lexhan Investment Ltd, until December 16, 2025.

They are facing charges related to an alleged N20 billion money laundering scheme.

Justice Akintoye Aluko scheduled the new date after Taiwo failed to appear in court to enter her plea.

Taiwo and her company are facing four counts filed by the Police Special Fraud Unit, which includes allegations of conspiracy, fraud, conversion, and retention of proceeds derived from crime.

The charge, marked FHC/L/781/C/ 2025, alleges that the defendants, along with others yet to be apprehended, conspired on or before March 5, 2024, in Lagos, to fraudulently convert shares and proceeds of assets left to Mrs. Idowu Ashiru and others by their late father.

The police assert that the converted funds, estimated at N20 billion, constitute proceeds of crime.

The Police Special Fraud Unit alleges that while Taiwo served as a director at Shonny Investment and Property Company Ltd and Lexhan Investment Ltd—the latter being a company she purportedly established to manage her late father’s estate—she unlawfully converted the shares and assets for her personal benefit.

The police further claim that Taiwo acted with the intent to defraud and permanently deny the rightful owners their inheritance.

According to the police, the offenses committed violate Section 21(a) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and are punishable under Section 18(3) of the same Act, and Section 383(2)(b) of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, punishable under Section 390.

When the case was called last Thursday for the defendants to take their plea, both the prosecutor and the first defendant (Taiwo Ibitola) were absent.
However, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), representing the defendants, informed the court that the defense had submitted a Motion on Notice, dated November 4, 2025, and filed on November 6, 2025.

Osipitan told the court that the application seeks to nullify the criminal aspect of the charge, arguing that the matter pertains to family inheritance and property rights, not criminal conduct.

He stated: “My Lord, we were served with a criminal summons at the instance of the Inspector-General of Police. We have filed a motion seeking to set aside the criminal aspect of the charge as the issue has to do with family rights and inheritance.”

Osipitan subsequently requested the court to adjourn the matter to allow the defense to serve the prosecution, who was absent, noting that the prosecution might then respond to the application before the next court date.

Consequently, Justice Aluko adjourned the case to December 16, 2025, for the defendants to enter their plea and for further legal proceedings.

In the Motion on Notice, the defense is requesting a court order to stay and suspend the arraignment of the defendants/applicants on the four counts filed on September 19, 2025, pending the decision on the application.

The motion also contained several specific requests, which read: “An order excusing/dispensing with the physical presence of the defendant/applicant from proceedings of the Court pending the hearing and determination of the instant application.”

“An order restraining the complainant/respondent, his servants, agents and officials from arraigning, taking steps towards the arraignment/arrest of the first defendant/applicant or applying for a warrant of arrest for the purpose of arresting the first defendant/Applicant pending the hearing and determination of this application.”

“An order dismissing, quashing, annulling and setting aside the four counts charge dated September 19, 2025 or any further amended charge against the defendants/applicants for want of jurisdiction to entertain the same.”

“An order dismissing, quashing, annulling, setting aside the four-count charge dated September 19, 2025 or any further amended charge against the defendants/applicants herein on the ground that the charge is unconstitutional, vague, void, oppressive, abusive of prosecutorial powers and processes of the court and a gross violation of defendants’ right to fair hearing.”