Olusanya is being tried before a Lagos Federal High Court over an alleged N152 million property fraud.
Justice Musa Kakaki admitted the letter as evidence in a ruling on Thursday. The judge, however, rejected three other documents dated January 10, January 11, 2024 and December 15, 2024, holding that they were photocopies and had not been properly explained by the witness who sought to tender them.
The ruling followed objections raised during the previous proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender them through the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor.
On the February 5, 2024 offer letter, the judge rejected the objection that Ugbebor was not the maker of the document.
“One of the grounds of the objections of January 10, January 11, and December 15, 2024, was that the documents are photocopies. On July 20, 2026, the witness, through whom the documents were to be tendered, did not give any explanation of where the original documents were.
“I also considered the submission of counsel on the document dated February 5, 2024, an objection of admissibility, that the nominal complainant is not the maker of the document, as there is no such provision. The document dated February 5, 2024, is hereby admitted in evidence,” the judge held.
Following the ruling, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that he had an interim application ready for hearing, adding that the defendants had been served and had filed responses.
However, counsel for the first defendant, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, questioned the prosecutor’s status, saying he had received information that Omo-Osagie had retired from the police.
Agboola said the prosecutor needed to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat, adding that he was not served with the interim application in his office.
“I was not served with the interim application by the prosecutor. When I informed him this morning that he ought to have served my office, he told me that he was not obliged to serve me, adding that he had served the first defendant.
“The case before the court today was a ruling and continuation of trial. He should call his witness or close his case, so that the defendant can open his case,” Agboola said.
Counsel for the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, also asked the prosecutor to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat.
The prosecutor added that the application concerned the nominal complainant’s health and was distinct from an earlier application seeking permission for the witness to testify virtually because he was not resident in Nigeria.
Justice Kakaki, however, said he had not seen the application in the court file and directed the prosecutor to check the registry to establish whether it had been properly filed.
When the case resumed, Omo-Osagie told the court that a search at the registry confirmed that the application had been sent to the court and signed for by a registrar in Kakaki’s court identified as Elizabeth.
“My lord, this is not the first time this will be happening; this is the second time in a series. I would really like something to be done,” he said, before presenting another copy of the application to the court.
The prosecutor subsequently moved the motion on notice, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.
He said the application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written address, which he adopted in urging the court to grant the reliefs sought.
Ehiedu objected to the prosecution’s response to the defendants’ counter-affidavits, arguing that the prosecutor had not filed a reply on points of law.
Omo-Osagie said he had only received the first and second defendants’ responses electronically on Monday.
Counsel for the first defendant, Benson Nwosu, who stood in for Agboola, argued that the earlier application, which the court dismissed on June 23, 2026, sought virtual testimony because the nominal complainant was outside Nigeria.
He said the prosecution could appeal the earlier decision rather than file another application seeking substantially the same relief.
Nwosu also argued that the prosecution should close its case if the witness could not appear in person. He urged the court to dismiss the application, while counsel for the second defendant adopted the first defendant’s arguments and urged the judge to reach the same conclusion.
After listening to the parties, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for ruling on the application.
