A Lagos State Special Offences Court has closed the defence of social media personality Ismaila Mustapha, popularly known as Mompha, in his ongoing ₦6 billion money laundering trial.
Mompha, alongside his company, Ismalob Global Investment Ltd, is facing an eight-count charge bordering on conspiracy, retention of proceeds of crime, and failure to disclose assets.
The defendant, who was arraigned on January 12, 2022, is currently being tried in absentia.
Trial judge, Mojisola Dada, ordered the closure of the defence after Mompha’s legal team failed to produce witnesses to support their case.
Justice Dada also set aside a witness summons filed by lead defence counsel, Kolawole Salami, describing it as erroneous and a tactic that could delay proceedings.
The court held that the defence had already exhausted its opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution’s witness and could not recall the same witness under the guise of presenting a defence.
According to the judge, the move would only introduce confusion and waste judicial time, stressing that the matter, filed in 2021 had already experienced multiple delays.
The court further ruled that the defence had been given ample opportunity to present its case but failed to do so, noting that previous adjournments had not been effectively utilised.
Earlier, the defence had informed the court of difficulties in securing witnesses, stating that key individuals were unavailable and outside the court’s jurisdiction.
However, prosecuting counsel from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Suleiman Suleiman, opposed the application, arguing that it was an attempt to stall the trial.
Following the ruling, the court directed both parties to file their final written addresses and adjourned the case to June 30 for adoption.
The court also granted the defence leave to appeal an earlier ruling delivered on November 4, 2025, which dismissed their no-case submission.
The defence had argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, expressing confidence that the appellate court would overturn the decision.
Despite assurances from the defence that witnesses would be produced after previous adjournments, the court maintained its stance against further delays, bringing the defence stage of the trial to a close.
Written by Wahab Akinlade