In a significant development within Nigeria's anti-corruption landscape, the Kaduna State High Court has once again delayed the trial of Polycarp Andrew, a former officer of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) who was dismissed from service. The adjournment, announced during a hearing on Wednesday, pushes the commencement of the substantive trial to December 11, 2025. This case underscores the challenges of internal accountability within law enforcement agencies and highlights allegations of embezzlement involving substantial foreign currency sums that were meant to be safeguarded as evidence in ongoing investigations.
Polycarp Andrew, previously employed as an exhibit keeper at the EFCC's Kaduna zonal office, faces serious charges that could tarnish the reputation of the nation's premier anti-graft body. He was first arraigned before the court on May 5, 2025, on a six-count indictment centered on criminal breach of trust. Andrew entered a not guilty plea to every count, setting the stage for what promises to be a protracted legal battle. The allegations paint a picture of betrayal from within, where an individual tasked with protecting seized assets allegedly exploited his position for personal gain.
The resumed hearing on Wednesday brought the procedural hurdles into sharp focus. Prosecuting counsel for the EFCC, H.M. Mohammed, appeared fully prepared to advance the case. He informed Justice A. Bello, the presiding judge, that the prosecution was ready to call its first two witnesses: an officer from the EFCC itself and a staff member from Opay, a popular digital payment platform in Nigeria. These witnesses were expected to provide critical testimony regarding the chain of custody for the exhibits and potentially the digital trails of the diverted funds. Mohammed's readiness signaled the EFCC's determination to pursue the matter vigorously, aiming to demonstrate that no one, not even its own former staff, is above the law.
In contrast, the defense team, led by counsel D.B. Kwajafa, requested an adjournment, citing inadequate preparation time. Kwajafa argued that his client, Andrew, required additional period to review newly disclosed evidence. Specifically, the defense had only recently received a flash drive containing the video recording of Andrew's extra-judicial statement—a confession or account given outside of court proceedings, often under caution. This material, Kwajafa contended, was pivotal for crafting a robust defense strategy. He emphasized that rushing into trial without thorough examination could prejudice the defendant's right to a fair hearing, a cornerstone of Nigeria's criminal justice system as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Prosecutor Mohammed vehemently opposed the defense's application for postponement. He argued that the video evidence in question was irrelevant at this preliminary stage of the proceedings. According to Mohammed, the trial's initial phase should focus on establishing the prima facie case through live witnesses and documentary proof, rather than delving into the defendant's statement, which could be addressed during cross-examination or later submissions. This opposition highlighted a tactical divide: the prosecution seeking momentum to keep pressure on the accused, while the defense employed delay as a means to bolster its position.
After listening attentively to submissions from both sides, Justice A. Bello exercised judicial discretion and granted the adjournment. The judge fixed December 11, 2025, as the new date for the trial to properly commence. This decision, while routine in complex criminal matters, reflects the court's commitment to balancing expeditious justice with the principles of due process. Adjournaments are not uncommon in Nigerian courts, often necessitated by logistical issues, evidence disclosure delays, or the need for adequate preparation, but they can frustrate public expectations for swift resolutions in high-profile corruption cases.
Delving into the substance of the charges, Andrew's alleged misconduct occurred between 2023 and 2024 during his tenure at the EFCC's Kaduna zonal command. As an exhibit keeper, his role was to securely store and manage items recovered during investigations, including cash in various currencies. The prosecution claims that Andrew breached this trust by diverting significant amounts of U.S. dollars that had been seized and entrusted to him. The specific sums include $11,900, equivalent to approximately N10.9 million at prevailing exchange rates; $3,800, roughly N5.9 million; and $2,800, about N3.8 million. These figures, though not astronomical in the context of some mega-corruption scandals, represent a direct pilfering of evidence that could undermine multiple EFCC probes.
Further compounding the gravity, Andrew is accused of fleeing to Taraba State after the alleged diversions came to light. This flight suggests an attempt to evade justice, potentially aggravating his situation under Nigerian law, where absconding can lead to additional charges or influence bail decisions. The EFCC's decision to dismiss him prior to arraignment indicates an internal investigation that uncovered the irregularities, prompting swift administrative action to preserve the agency's integrity.
Legally, the offenses are said to violate Section 300 of the Kaduna State Penal Code Law, 2017. This provision addresses criminal breach of trust, punishable by imprisonment upon conviction. For a former law enforcement officer, the case carries symbolic weight: it exposes vulnerabilities within the EFCC, an institution often criticized for its own operational lapses despite its mandate to combat economic crimes. The involvement of foreign currency adds layers of complexity, potentially touching on money laundering statutes or exchange control regulations under the Central Bank of Nigeria's oversight.
This trial is part of a broader narrative in Nigeria's fight against corruption. The EFCC, established in 2003, has recovered billions in assets but faces scrutiny over internal controls. Cases like Andrew's serve as reminders that anti-corruption efforts must include self-policing. Public interest remains high, with civil society groups and media outlets monitoring proceedings for transparency.
As the court adjourns, stakeholders await December 11. The prosecution will likely refine its witness list, while the defense pores over the video evidence. Potential outcomes range from acquittal if procedural flaws emerge, to conviction with severe penalties, including restitution and incarceration. This delay, spanning several months, allows time for any plea bargains or further investigations but also risks witness tampering or evidence degradation.
In the interim, the case reinforces the need for digital evidence management reforms within agencies like the EFCC. Flash drives and video statements are modern tools, yet their late disclosure highlights disclosure protocol gaps. Justice Bello's courtroom will be a battleground for proving whether Andrew's actions constituted a "serious breach of public trust," as the EFCC asserts.
Ultimately, the resolution of this matter could influence recruitment standards, exhibit handling protocols, and public confidence in the EFCC. With Nigeria grappling with economic challenges, including naira depreciation that amplifies the impact of dollar thefts, swift and fair justice is imperative. The adjourned date marks not an end, but a pause in a saga that questions the guardians of integrity themselves.
