N4.8bn Fraud: Dozzy Oil & Gas Accuses Ibeto Of Falsehood

The founder and Group Managing Director of Dozzy Group, Chief Daniel Chukwudozie, has accused Chief Cletus Ibeto and his group of companies of deliberately twisting the facts of their ongoing criminal prosecution over an alleged N4.8 billion Fraud before the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja.

In a press statement issued by the media office of Dozzy Oil & Gas Limited, the organisation described the claims by Chief Ibeto and his companies that the alleged fraud case has been settled and that the money has been paid as a falsehood.

It’s stated that the assertions are not only concocted but borne out of the mischievous intention to mislead the public by creating a ‘good boy’ image for themselves.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had filed a 10-count charge of conspiracy, fraud, forgery, and fraudulent use of documents against the businessman and his companies, Ibeto Energy Development Company and Odoh Holdings Ltd.

However, the planned arraignment of the defendants has been stalled on several occasions due to his failure to appear in court, although he was represented by his lawyers.

Read the full press release below:

THE CURRENT STATE AND REAL STORY BEHIND THE (ALLEGED) FRAUD PERPETRATED AGAINST SIR DANIEL CHUKWUDOZIEDOZZY OIL & GAS LIMITED BY CHIEF CLETUS IBETO GROUP.

The attention of the media office of Dozzy Oil & Gas Limited has been drawn to the misinformation campaign of Chief Cletus Ibeto and his group of companies regarding the ongoing Civil and Criminal Matters between our Company and Chief Ibeto with his Companies, ipso facto, that the matter between our Company and themselves has been settled and that the debt owed our Company by them (Ibeto) has been paid, that the Rivers State High Court Coram Enebeli J. in Suit No. PHC/158/CS/22- Ibeto Energy Development Company Ltd., Chief Cletus Ibeto V Dozzy Oil & Gas Ltd. & Two Others confirmed their ownership of the land covered by Deed of Sub-lease registered as No. 47/47/280 measuring 226,536.257 square meters (or 22.6 hectares). 

The above assertion are not only concocted but borne out of the mischievous intention to mislead the public by creating a ‘good boy’ image for themselves. We shall now proceed to restate the correct facts as they are:

1. That it is an in indisputable fact, which was established by the investigation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), that our company and Executive Chairman, Sir Daniel Chukwudozie, gave the total sum of N3, 295,000,000.00 (Three Billion, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Million Naira) and another sum of $3,000,000 USD (Three Million US Dollars) to Chief Cletus Ibeto and his Companies.

2. It is also indisputable that our Company and our Executive Chairman advanced the sums of $3,000,000 USD (Three Million US Dollars) to Chief Cletus Ibeto and his Companies on two occasions notably on 2nd September, 2015 and another on 9th October, 2015. These amounts were wired to the designated account of Ardeja Trading Company Limited nominated by Chief Ibeto from our Company’s First Bank of Nigeria Limited account, with the relevant telex particular

3. That while Chief Clement Ibeto repaid the initial 2nd September, 2015 sum advance of $3,000,000 USD (Three Million US Dollars) , he was unable to repay the second sum of $3,000,000 USD (Three Million US Dollars) advance of 9th October, 2015 and subsequently pleaded that the debt be set-off as our company’s part payment for the parcel of land being negotiated. Despite admitting the existence of this debt at the commencement of the transaction, Chief Ibeto has, despite irrefutable evidence, confirming our advance of the said sum to them, made a turn around by denying the existence of the debt.

4. In the circumstances of the above state of affairs, it is not only surprising, but stupefying that Chief Ibeto could go around claiming that the matter between our Company and themselves has been settled, in circumstances in which he continues to deny the existence of the debt of $3,000,000 USD (Three Million US Dollars) which he has owed us public’s attention date.

5. Another lie that has consistently been peddled by Chief Ibeto and Companies is that the High Court of Port-Harcourt in the judgment delivered by Enebeli J confirmed their ownership of the parcel of land measuring approximately 22.6 hectares and covered by Deed of Sub-lease registered as No. 47/47/280 of the Lands Registry office in Port Harcourt. But what they consistently concealed from their listeners is that while the Deed of Sub-lease registered as No. 47/47/280 being bandied by Chief Cletus Ibeto bore a total land size of 22.6 hectares, the counterpart copy of the Deed of Sub-lease registered as NO 47/47/280, which is the CORRECT eed of Sub-lease, domiciled at the Lands Registry office in Port Harcourt bears a total land size of 7800 square metres and/or 7.8 hectares.

6. The above-stated facts were collaborated by the Registrar of Titles at the River State Lands Registry, Mr. SylvanusNwankpila, who in the cause of his evidence for our Company, under subpoena,  tendered the physical file to show that the application used by Chief Ibeto to process the Executive Governors consent to the Deed of Sub-lease is an application for consent over 7800 square meters and tendered the certified true copy of the said Deed of Sub-lease extracted from Registry’s bearing a total land ownership of 7800 square meters.

7. Also, what the peddlers of these lies failed to explain to their unsuspecting listeners is how their Deed of Sub-lease which admitted of the lease of 40 acres of land in paragraph 2 of the recital subsequently came to bear a purported 22.6 hectares with a survey plan which are both at variance with the Lands Registry copy.

8. It is important to restate that the counter claim of our Company in the referenced suit at High Court of Rivers State included an order of perpetual injunction restraining Ibeto and his Companies from encroaching on our parcel of land. The evidence of such encroachment were established in the composite plan prepared by the Surveyor General of Rivers State, which clearly showed that the area of land filled by Chief Ibeto fell within the portion assigned to Umetres Oreria Technical Company Limited (NITECO). It is important to state that it is on account of being cognizant of the contents of the said composite plan that Hon. Justice Enebeli, on page 20 of his judgment, stated as follows:

“Let me now clarify that this case being between the 3rd Defendant (our company) and the 1st Claimant (Ibeto), the rights of the 3rd Defendant over the parcel of land in dispute can only relate to portions allegedly encroached upon by the 1st Claimant, if any, and not on any other portion whether or not the Claimant’s title is valid”.

9. It is also surprising that despite the courts holding above, these same peddlers of falsehood failed to inform their listeners that the court affirmed our title to the Deed of Assignment registered as No. 37 at Page 37 in Volume 359 of the Lands Registry, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, which includes the portion encroached upon by Chief Ibeto and his companies.

10. Why has these band of lie peddlers not informed their audience that the Rivers State High Court made an Order of perpetual injunction restraining Ibeto and his Companies from continuing to lay claim over our Company’s land covered by the Deed of Assignment registered as No. 37 at Page 37 in Volume 359 of the Lands Registry in Port Harcourt, measuring approximately 122.3 hectares, but prefer to mislead and distort the correct state of affairs with a view to misleading the gullible public.

11. If Chief Ibeto and his companies felt so confident of their title to the encroached portion of the land which they illegally sand filled, the next question which they should answer is the circumstances that informed their desperation to procure and file a forged/purported Rivers State gazette No. 13 Vol 25 dated 15th March, 2000,wherein they claimed that NITECO’s Building Lease, through which we acquired our title, has been revoked by the Rivers State Government, but buckled and discarded the said gazette when the Rivers State Ministry of Lands and Survey wrote to confirm that our Assignment and the Building Lease between NITECO and Rivers State Government is still valid and subsisting and that the said gazette is fake and “does not exist in the records or digital system of the Rivers State Government”.

12. For the records, we wish to draw the attention of the public that Chief Cletus Ibeto and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie had been friends for a very long time. Sometime in the year 2017 or thereabout, Chief Cletus Ibeto offered to sell a large parcel of land off Reclamation Road Layout, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Sir Daniel Chukwudozie of Dozzy Oil and Gas Limited, through his companies: Ibeto Energy Development Limited and Odoh Holdings Limited. The said parcel of land was claimed to be owned by the two companies. The parties negotiated and agreed on a price for the land, amounting to over N6000,000,000.00(Six Billion Naira).

13. Based on their friendship, Sir Daniel Chukwudozie, without conducting a formal search, to verify the title of Sir Cletus Ibeto and his companies over the said parcel of land, started paying them for the land, relying on an assumed integrity of his friend. At this time, Chief Cletus Ibeto owed Sir Daniel Chukwudozie the earlier stated sum of US$3,000,000.00, which was agreed to be part of the payment for the land In addition, Sir Daniel Chukwudozie further paid Chief Ibeto the sum of N3,295,000,000.00 (Three Billion, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Million Naira).

14. When Sir Daniel Chukwudozie eventually instructed his lawyers to verify the title of Chief Cletus Ibeto and his companies to the land, the lawyers discovered that the purported title documents handed over to Sir Daniel Chukwudozie by Chief Cletus Ibeto and the size of the land as stated in the title documents were not in agreement with what was found in the Rivers State Land Registry.

15. While the size of land contained in the habendum clause of the Deed of Sublease registered as No. 47/47/280 at the Lands Registry Office, Port Harcourt, in Rivers State is 78,756.914 Square Meters (approximately 7.8 acres), the purported survey plan No. TCU/RV066/2007 attached to the document given by Chief Ibeto to Sir Daniel Chukwudozie was 226,536.257 square metres, which amounts to 22,635.36 hectares. Also, the habendum clause of another copy of the same title document registered as No. 47/47/280, which they further sent to Dozzy certified on 13/12/17, bore a different conveyance of 201,926.377 square metresor 20.193 hectares.

16. When Sir Daniel Chukwudozie notified Chief Cletus Ibeto of the discrepancies in the purported size of the land and the actual size of the land as disclosed in the Land Registry, he (Ibeto) caused a meeting to be held between him and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie. At the said meeting, Ibeto explained that the discrepancies in his title documents were a result of “typographical errors”. At the same meeting, he subsequently handed Sir Daniel Chukwudozie another certified true copy of the title document to establish that the size of the land was what he claimed it was. He asked Sir Daniel Chukwudozie to verify the search. At this point, the lawyers of Sir Daniel Chukwudozie formally wrote to the Registrar of Deeds in Rivers State to verify the authenticity of the certified true copies of the new set of documents provided by Chief Cletus Ibeto. The said Registrar of Deeds wrote back to both Chief Cletus Ibeto and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie explaining that the certified true copy of the title documents were issued in error and demanded their return as it does not reflect what is in the records of the Lands Registry, Port Harcourt.

17. It therefore, at this stage, became apparent that the documents handed over to Sir Daniel Chukwudozie by Chief Cletus Ibeto were forged to cover up his false claims of ownership through his said companies of 201,926.377 square metresor 20.193 hectares or 22,635.36 hectares– depending on which of the Title documents being reviewed. Indeed, it was later discovered that what Chief Cletus Ibeto owned through his said companies was only 7.8 hectares of land, while he continued to claim ownership of 22,635.36 at one point or 20.193 hectares at another point in the said area.

18. It is therefore clear that from the onset, Chief Cletus Ibeto deliberately set out to defraud his friend Sir Daniel Chukwudozie by purporting to sell to him land that he and his companies only own a small fraction of, being only7.9 hectares instead of the 20.193 and/or 22,635.36 hectares he claimed they own. He forged documents to support this false claim. Even when Sir Daniel Chukwudozie caused a search to be made, and queries were raised about the size of the land, he caused fraudulent certified true copies of the title documents to be produced and presented to Sir Daniel Chukwudozie. This beyond doubt, shows a clear intention to defraud Sir Daniel Chukwudozie for his hard-earned funds. Only Chief Cletus Ibeto can explain how he cooked up the fraudulent, certified true copy of the title document, which the Registrar of Lands in Rivers State disowned.

19. When Sir Daniel Chukwudozie made efforts to reclaim the money he paid for a failed transaction, he refused to return the said funds. Sir Daniel Chukwudozie had no option but to cause a petition to be made to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

20. The EFCC invited him but he failed to honor the invitation. Eventually when he appeared, he asked for time to supply documents to refute or controvert the allegations against him. Instead of bringing the documents, he rushed back to apply for the enforcement of his rights at the High Court of Rivers State in Suit No. PHC/268/FHR/2022, claiming that he was being intimidated and harassed by the EFCC and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie and asked the Court to restrain them. He also alleged that EFCC has no jurisdiction to deal with a simple contractual matter that did not disclose criminal elements. He lost the case, and the Court found sufficient grounds for suspicion of a crime and, held that EFCC had the power to handle the matter.

21. After proper investigation, Chief Cletus Ibeto and his companies were charged criminally with a 10 count of information relating to offences of obtaining money by false pretense, forgery, and using false documents or uttering. He was scheduled severally to be arraigned before the High Court of Lagos State presided over by Honorable Justice Ismail Ijelu.

22. After being served with a copy of the Information containing the proof of evidence and realising that he has no defence to the action Chief Cletus Ibeto went into hiding. He and his companies were scheduled to be arraigned on 28th September 2023 on which date Chief EmekaOkpoko, SAN appeared for him and pleaded for an adjournment to enable Chief Cletus Ibeto, who was said to be indisposed to appear. The prosecuting counsel Mr. Rotimi Jacobs SAN accepted the plea. The case was then adjourned to 5th October 2023.

23. On 5th October 2023, Dr. OnyechiIkpeazu, SAN appeared with EmekaOkpoko, SAN for the Defendants. The 1st Defendant Chief Cletus Ibeto was still absent and no satisfactory explanation was given for his absence. DrOnyechiIkpeazu informed the court that he would explore the possibility of settlement of the case and asked for an adjournment which the learned prosecuting senior counsel MrRotimi Jacobs reluctantly conceded to. The Court expressed disappointment with the conduct of the 1st Defendant and adjourned the case to 3rd November 2023 for arraignment.

24. On 3rd November 2023, a new counsel Mr. Dada Awosika, SAN, appeared for the Defendants. The 1st Defendant, Chief Cletus, was still absent from court. Mr. Dada Awosika, SAN, informed the Court that they had filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to entertain the matter. The learned senior counsel for the Defendants contended that given the application challenging the court’s jurisdiction, there was no need for his clients to be in court. Mr. Rotimi Jacobs argued to the contrary. In its ruling, the Court held that the 1st Defendant must appear in court to take his plea, and it is only after that that the court will assume jurisdiction to entertain his application, challenging jurisdiction. After the ruling, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs moved the Court to issue a Bench Warrant against the 1st Defendant, given his consistent absence from court without any reason. The Bench Warrant applied for was ordered, and the case was adjourned to 15th November 2023 for arraignment. On that date, the Court did not sit owing to a strike initiated by the Nigerian Labour Congress.

25. When the case came up again on 5th December 2023, another counsel, Mr. Uche Obi, SAN appeared for the Defendants holding the brief of Chief WoleOlanipekun, SAN. Also on that day, DrJide Martins, the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecution, appeared for the Attorney General of Lagos State. He informed the Court that the office of the Attorney-General of Lagos State received a petition dated 13th November 2023, written by Chief Robert Clarke, SAN on behalf of the Defendants against the Judge trying the case. In line with section 211 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is taking over the criminal proceedings since most of the charges were brought under the criminal Laws of Lagos State. MrUche Obi, SAN, informed the court that since the issue of representation has arisen, there is a need for the court first to resolve it. He added that the 1st Defendant was in Dallas, Texas, in the United States for treatment of an alleged life-threatening ailment. In response, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs expressed surprise at the application of the Honourable Attorney General and stated that he was never informed about the proposed intention of the Attorney-General to take over the matter. He then told the court that he would meet with the DPP and the Honourable Attorney General to resolve this matter. The court ruled that the issue of legal representation would have to be resolved first before proceeding further and adjourned to 29th January 2024.

26. It is pertinent to state that the issues raised by the Defendants in their application challenging the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court were the issues raised by Chief Robert Clarke, SAN in his petition to the Chief Judge of Lagos State. These issues are as follows:

1.  The High Court of Lagos State lacks jurisdiction to entertain the charges against the Defendants because the subject matter allegedly occurred in Rives State.

2. That EFCC lacks the statutory competence to investigate the subject matter in the suit on the ground that the matter arose from a failed land transaction.

3. The subject matter of the criminal case arose from a failed land transaction between the Defendants and Dozzy Oil and Gas Limited and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie.

4. Parties submitted the dispute to a civil court in Rivers State, and that court gave judgment. Parties are now in the Court of Appeal regarding the same subject matter.

5. The trial judge in this case was biased when he issued a bench warrant against the 1st Defendant.

27. It has to be noted that these issues raised are legal points that only the trial court can decide. The presiding Judge had indicated his readiness to hear arguments on these points if the 1st Defendant appeared in Court which he refused to do. Strangely, such a party that is in default is the one, raising issues via petition to the Chief Judge. To this extent, the letter of the learned Senior Advocate Robert Clarke, constitutes an abuse of the court process and should or ought not to be entertained.

28. Furthermore, on the issue raised that the EFCC has no power to investigate this matter which according to the Defendants was an issue of simple contract that the Defendants had already raised in a fundamental rights action at the High Court of Rivers State. That court had decided the matter against the Defendants holding that it was not a simple contractual matter but that it disclosed criminal and fraudulent elements. That court is correct because the facts disclosed a financial crime, which the EFCC has the right to handle.                     

29. The Court further held that there were sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion that the Defendants committed the crimes. Thus, a court of competent jurisdiction had resolved those issues at the instance of the Defendants, and that decision is binding on the Defendants.

The Court held:

“As earlier said, the law of contract and the criminal law operate in different apartments in the judicial process in their recognised different jurisprudence and there cannot be any case of superiority or inferiority of the part of the law of contract… the fact of the existence of a judgment in a contract case does not preclude investigations into allegations of fraud relating to the title documents in that case.”

30. The Defendants also made allegation of bias against the trial Judge in the letter written by Robert Clarke, SAN based on the fact that he granted the prosecution’s application for issuance of Bench Warrant upon repeated refusal of the 1st Defendant to attend court, despite the several opportunities given to him to attend. No sound legal mind will contend that the trial court does not have the power to issue bench warrant under the circumstances. Even at that, the Defendants had appealed against the order of Bench Warrant to the Court of Appeal, and the matter is still pending at that Court. It remains to be seen whether the appellate court will disagree with the trial Court’s exercise of power in that regard. Making a petition against the trial Judge to the Chief Judge is not the right course that ought to have been taken. Let the Defendants pursue their appeal so that we will know the eventual outcome.

31. It is also shocking to us that the Honourable Attorney-General of Lagos State, without any petition being addressed to his office, jumped into and sought to take over a matter being prosecuted by an agency of the Federal Government on the ground that some of the counts of the Information were framed on Laws of Lagos State, even without prior notification to Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, the EFCC Prosecutor, who is handling the matter for the Federal Government. We wonder what motivates such action and the manner it was taken. The learned Attorney-General went further to appoint him as amicus curiae in the matter and unilaterally filed a written address without serving the prosecution counsel.

32. We know that under the powers of the Attorney General of a State, it can take over matters being handled or prosecuted by private citizens. However, in the exercise of his powers, the Attorney General must act in the public interest, in the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process. In this case, the action of the Attorney General if not well considered may be viewed as amounting to an arrangement between his office and the legal representative of the Defendants to frustrate the prosecution of this matter by the EFCC. That would not amount to acting in the public interest.

33.  In this case, the complaints of Robert Clarke, SAN were directed to the office of the Chief Judge of Lagos State, we think that the Honourable Attorney General ought to have acted only when there is a formal complaint to his office. In this case also, where an agency of the Federal Government is involved, the matter ought to be more courteously handled as it involves two different tiers of government. We believe that the Attorney General of Lagos State only acted this way because he is not well seized of the detailed facts of the case. It may well be the officers of his department who are using his name to take steps prior to the full consultation and briefing of the Honourable Attorney General. It is expected that before seeking to take over the matter, he ought to have heard from the EFCC. We believe that after ascertaining the true facts of this matter, his attitude will be different.

34. However, one thing that is evident is that the Defendants, knowing fully well that they are guilty of the crimes alleged against them, are very desperate to avoid the prosecution they deserve. They are therefore exploring every avenue to abort their prosecution. They were offered the opportunity to resolve this matter amicably prior to this stage, but they were not ready to utilize it. Even more recently as the noose is tightening, they had in a letter dated 3rd January 2024, written by their counsel, offered to repay the money they obtained from Sir Daniel Chukwudozie in six (6) equal instalmentswithin six months. Despite making that offer, they have failed to honour it.

35.  Instead of channeling their resources towards repaying their loot, they are using the same to hire sundry lawyers and to knock at various doors in their desperate attempt to avoid justice. Such conduct ought not to be encouraged, and we hope that the very senior counsel he is hiring will advise him appropriately.

36. Based on the above enumerated circumstances, the general public is urged to discard the tissues of falsehood being peddled about the resolution of our dispute with Ibeto and his Companies.