Taraba news publisher remanded over alleged N300m fraud
By our reporter
A Taraba-based journalist and publisher, Gabriel Olayinka of Taraba News, has been remanded in prison custody by the Upper Area Court in Jalingo over an alleged failed N300 million business transaction involving the Director of Finance of the Taraba State High Court, Mr. Jibril Danladi.
The presiding judge, Hon. Justice Justice Lawan Jika of the Upper Area Court 7, Jalingo, ruled on the remand following a petition by Mr. Danladi, who is also the proprietor of the multi-billion naira Shield Hotel in Jalingo.
According to the complaint, Mr. Danladi, a senior civil servant in the state judiciary, invested N300 million into a business scheme called Super Cash Loan, allegedly operated by Mr. Olayinka. The scheme promised a monthly interest return of 11%, with a total expected return of N100 million within few months.
In a suit filed at the Chief Magistrate Court, Mr. Danladi sought a warrant of arrest under Sections 21 and 50–55 of the Taraba State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, No. 11 of 2021. The warrant was issued based on the following key points:
Mr. Danladi claimed he was lured into investing N300 million by Mr. Olayinka under false pretenses. The accused allegedly diverted the funds and failed to repay both the principal sum and the agreed interest of N176 million.
It was later agreed the capital would be repaid in monthly instalments of N50 million starting from June 2025, but Mr. Olayinka allegedly failed to honor the agreement.
The complainant accused Mr. Olayinka of evading communication and fleeing from the state. Mr. Olayinka is charged with criminal breach of trust and cheating, contrary to Sections 312 and 322 of the Penal Code.
Despite the initial filing at the Magistrate Court, the case was transferred to the Upper Area Court without prior notice or summons being served on Mr. Olayinka, raising questions about due process.
The court acknowledged that the alleged offences are bailable. However, Judge Lawan Jika ruled that, considering the financial magnitude and the warrant-based arrest, stringent bail conditions were necessary:
Sureties must sign affidavits of means and submit two recent passport photographs.
The defendant must submit his international passport to the court registry.
Sureties must include a federal-level director and a state-level permanent secretary.
Sureties must own landed properties worth at least N500 million, backed with Certificates of Occupancy deposited with the court.
The defendant must also deposit N200 million with the court in line with Section 178(2) & (3) of the Taraba State ACJL 2021.
Pending the fulfillment of these conditions, Mr. Olayinka is to remain in prison custody. The case was adjourned to October 3, 2025, for further hearing.
In response, Mr. Olayinka’s legal counsel, Barr. P.D. Pius, filed a motion at the Federal High Court, Jalingo, challenging the legality of his client’s detention and the conditions surrounding the bail.
Suit No: FHC/JAL/FHR/63/2025
Motion No: FHC/JAL/M/134/2025
Presiding Judge: Hon. Justice Mashkur Salisu
The applicant requested:
A liberal variation of the bail terms.
An order for the release of his Corolla car, confiscated during the arrest though unrelated to the case.
Enforcement of his fundamental rights, including presumption of innocence, fair trial, and liberty.
During the Federal High Court hearing, it emerged that Mr. Olayinka had allegedly repaid over N100 million of the invested sum. Interestingly, Mr. Danladi claimed the funds belonged to unnamed judges in the state judiciary, sparking concerns about potential judicial conflicts of interest.
Why was Mr. Olayinka taken directly to the Upper Area Court instead of the Magistrate Court that issued the warrant?
Why was he arrested without prior invitation or formal summons?
Is Mr. Danladi leveraging his position as the financial head of the state judiciary to influence the judicial process?
Critics argue that the case appears to involve more than just a civil dispute, pointing to alleged abuse of office and power within the judicial structure. The apparent irregularities have raised broader concerns about judicial independence and fairness in the ongoing proceedings.
