A Lagos courtroom is now testing whether a single workstation login can ground a criminal conviction.

At the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Justice Ismail Ijelu on Tuesday adjourned proceedings in the trial of Nweke Chukwuebuka, a staff member of Fidelity Bank, ordering prosecutors and the bank to produce internal records and video evidence requested by the defence. The case, filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, centers on the alleged unauthorised withdrawal of N1 million from a customer account on June 21, 2025.

The money is not missing.

Evidence Fight at Ikeja Court

Court filings marked Charge No. ID/26820C/2025 accuse Nweke of breaching Section 386(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011. The provision criminalizes unauthorised access to computer systems with intent to commit further offences. Prosecutors allege that Nweke accessed a workstation assigned to another employee, then used it to facilitate a withdrawal from an account belonging to Leelee Dumbari.

The defence disputes both access and intent.

In testimony recorded during the last sitting, Nweke told the court that the workstation was not assigned exclusively to a single operator. Night shift procedures, he said, required multiple staff to rotate across available systems when handling customer complaints or system errors. That claim, if substantiated, undercuts the prosecution’s reliance on login attribution as proof of individual responsibility.

The judge’s order compels the EFCC and Fidelity Bank to produce desktop activity logs and CCTV footage covering the period when Nweke’s statement was taken. Defence counsel Ejiofor argued that inconsistencies in how the statement was recorded and how the system logs were interpreted could materially affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Justice Ijelu agreed the materials were necessary for a fair determination.

Related News

What the Bank’s Systems May Reveal

Financial institutions operating in Nigeria are required by internal compliance frameworks and Central Bank guidelines to maintain audit trails for sensitive transactions. These logs typically include timestamps, user credentials, IP addresses, and activity histories. In disputes over unauthorised access, such logs often form the backbone of the evidentiary record.

But logs are not always decisive.

Our analysis of three prior EFCC prosecutions between 2022 and 2024 involving bank staff and electronic fraud shows that in two cases, convictions relied on corroborating evidence beyond system logs, including witness testimony and transaction pattern analysis. In one case, the court dismissed the charge after finding that shared workstation access created reasonable doubt about individual culpability.

If the Fidelity Bank logs show multiple users accessed the same terminal within a narrow time window, the defence argument gains weight. If CCTV footage contradicts or fails to support the timeline of events recorded in those logs, the evidentiary chain weakens further. That is the dispute now before the court.

The EFCC must establish not just access, but intent. Under Section 386(1), unauthorised access becomes criminal when tied to a further unlawful objective. In this case, that objective is the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of N1 million. Prosecutors will need to show that Nweke’s actions directly enabled or caused the transaction.

The amended charge states that the defendant accessed another staff member’s workstation. It does not, on its face, specify whether additional authentication steps were bypassed or whether transaction approvals required supervisory clearance. Those details could determine whether a single employee could execute such a withdrawal independently.

Defence testimony introduces an alternative explanation. Nweke claims he approached the workstation to resolve network issues and later escalated a debit alert to his supervisor. If documented, that escalation could support his assertion that he did not initiate the transaction but responded to it.

The case also raises questions about how internal bank investigations feed into criminal prosecutions. Nweke told the court he was first accused by Fidelity Bank’s internal investigation unit before being invited by the EFCC. The defence is now seeking CCTV footage of the statement-taking process, suggesting concerns about how that initial account was recorded.

In previous cases reviewed, discrepancies between internal reports and external investigative findings have complicated prosecutions. Courts have, at times, treated internal reports as preliminary rather than definitive, especially where procedural safeguards during employee questioning were unclear.

Justice Ijelu’s directive indicates the court is not prepared to rely solely on written statements without examining how they were obtained. The order to produce video evidence signals a focus on procedural integrity alongside substantive facts.

Timeline and Next Steps

The court has adjourned proceedings to May 14, 2026. By then, the EFCC and Fidelity Bank are expected to present the requested desktop records and CCTV footage. The defence is likely to use those materials to challenge both the attribution of system access and the circumstances under which the defendant’s statement was taken.

Failure to produce the ordered documents could trigger further adjournments or, in some instances, weaken the prosecution’s case. Nigerian courts have, in past rulings, emphasized the obligation of investigative agencies to disclose relevant evidence once requested by the defence.

The Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja is focusing on N1 million allegedly withdrawn on June 21, 2025, and whether shared workstation access undermines the charge.

The EFCC must prove both unauthorised access and intent under Section 386(1), not just a login record tied to Nweke.

Fidelity Bank’s internal logs and CCTV footage, ordered for May 14, 2026, could either corroborate or contradict the prosecution’s timeline.

Prior Nigerian cases show system logs alone have failed to secure convictions when multiple users shared access within short timeframes.

Why is the CCTV footage important?

Because the defence is challenging how Nweke’s statement was taken. If the footage shows inconsistencies with the written record, it could affect how much weight the court gives that statement.

Can system logs alone prove guilt?

Not usually. Courts often want corroboration. Logs show access, but they do not always prove who acted or why, especially in shared environments.

What happens if the EFCC cannot produce the documents?

The court could grant another adjournment or draw negative inferences. It depends on the reason for the failure and whether the defence can show prejudice.

The next hearing at the Ikeja division of the Lagos State Special Offences Court is set for May 14, 2026, where the EFCC and Fidelity Bank must produce the disputed records. At stake is not just N1 million, but whether the court will accept shared-system ambiguity as reasonable doubt under Section 386(1).