Criticism Trails Police Arraignment of Chappal Energies Boss by  Police

Wale Igbintade

All is set for  the  arraignment of the Founder, Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Chappal Energies, Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, before the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Division, over the alleged theft of an official vehicle.

In Charge No: 28400C/26, seen by journalists, the police alleged that Immanuel conspired with others, who were not named, to steal a Lexus Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) LA 600F identified in the charge as belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Limited.

The defendant, who is the CEO of the company, is currently standing trial before another Judge of the same court, Justice Mojisola Dada, on a criminal charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), following a petition by Immanuel’s business partner, Adebisi Adebutu.

The EFCC case arose from a dispute involving Immanuel and Adebutu concerning commercial investment arrangements.

Court documents showed that the dispute centred on commercial investment arrangements involving Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited, Intermediate and Investment Holdings Limited, R28 Limited and its founder, Adebutu, in connection with investments linked to the acquisition of Equinor Nigeria’s assets.

The issues include disputed shareholding arrangements, subscription rights, investment obligations, financing arrangements and competing corporate interests.

In the latest charge filed by the police, Immanuel, the founder and CEO of Chappal Energies, is expected to be arraigned over allegations of theft and dishonest conversion of the official vehicle.

The charge identifies the vehicle as belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Limited.

However, the circumstances surrounding the alleged theft and the extent of any alleged deprivation have prompted questions from a lawyer who has reviewed the disclosed materials.

An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Soro Chistiantus, noted that Immanuel is the company’s founder, managing director and chief executive officer and remains in those positions until replaced.

He submitted that before preparing an arraignment, the police should consider several questions, including: What transaction was completed? Who is said to have acquired the vehicle? What money changed hands? What deprivation did the company suffer if the vehicle remains in its possession or ownership?

He argued that the materials provided to him do not appear to supply clear answers.

“That should have prompted the police to examine whether this was, at most, an internal approval or procurement issue rather than a criminal theft. Instead, scarce fraud-unit resources have been committed to a prosecution in which the disclosed materials do not appear to identify a completed disposal, a buyer, proceeds or permanent deprivation,” he added.

He submitted that: “Wednesday’s appearance may therefore present the rare spectacle of a man being placed in the dock for allegedly stealing an asset that the company continues to own.”

A retired Commissioner of Police, who spoke on the matter, also questioned the basis of the allegation.

He expressed concern that the “police are prosecuting a man over an official vehicle acquired for his use and partly registered in his name and is still the company’s property.”

A company source, who craved anonymity, also disputed the allegation.

He explained that the vehicle had developed several mechanical faults and was already due to be replaced.

According to him, a subsequent routine security sweep reportedly detected three listening devices installed in the car.

He said a formal internal report setting out the discovery of the devices, together with details of the vehicle’s mechanical problems, was subsequently sent to the company.

“This was not a vehicle being hidden from Chappal. Its location, condition, planned replacement and security concerns were formally reported to Chappal,” he said.

Unhappy with the faults and the reported discovery of the listening devices, he said Immanuel contacted a private dealer to explore trading in the Lexus for a replacement and personally met the replacement cost.

“The complaint appears to be that he should have approached Chappal’s procurement team before initiating that discussion. Even if that internal procedure should have been followed from the outset, a possible procurement-process lapse is not necessarily the same as theft,” he stressed.

Continuing, he said: “Immanuel subsequently contacted the procurement team, notified the General Counsel and handed the proposed trade-in process over to company personnel to manage.

“The vehicle remains the company’s property. The disclosed prosecution materials do not appear to identify a completed disposal or purchaser or sale proceeds. What then is the alleged act of theft, and what deprivation is said to have occurred?

“The proposed information nevertheless alleges conspiracy and dishonest conversion of a vehicle valued at about N600 million.

“The proof-of-evidence bundle identifies the originating petition, statements, internal board correspondence, a change-of-ownership document and a police invitation.

“On the face of those materials, it does not appear to identify a completed disposal, a purchaser, proceeds or permanent deprivation. The unnamed alleged co-conspirators are described as ‘others at large’, while the vehicle is identified in the materials as company property.

“This appears to raise questions about whether the matter concerns the sequence in which an executive engaged a dealer, procurement personnel, and the General Counsel,” he said.

The planned arraignment comes amid a wider dispute involving Chappal Energies, International Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL), Chappal Energies founder, Immanuel, who is also the company’s largest shareholder, and R28.

The wider dispute has also involved questions concerning the proposed rights issue and corporate control of Chappal Energies.

Meanwhile, sources said the Attorney-General of the Federation had directed the EFCC to explain its involvement in the matter pending before Justice Dada, which some parties have characterised as essentially commercial in nature.

Sources also said complaints concerning Justice Dada’s handling of the case had been submitted to the National Judicial Council. The status and substance of any such complaints could not be independently established as of press time.

It was gathered that Adebutu’s R28 said it had raised the money for the rights issue, although independently verifiable evidence had not been provided to shareholders, even as the arbitration remains ongoing in London.

The rights issue may be capable of transactional completion, but that is not necessarily the same as legal closure. Completion describes steps such as funding and allotment, while legal closure would depend on the outcome of outstanding legal and regulatory issues.

“These issues form the backdrop, but they should not distract from the immediate question of how this particular vehicle allegation became a criminal case,” Chistiantus said.