The Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has fixed June 9, 2026, to deliver its ruling on the bail application filed by social media personality and self-acclaimed relationship therapist, Blessing Nkiruka Okoro, popularly known as Blessing CEO, who is facing trial over an alleged N36 million property fraud.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu scheduled the ruling after listening to arguments from both the defence and prosecution regarding the defendant’s request to be released on bail pending the determination of the case.
During the proceedings, counsel to the defendant, P.I. Nwafuru, informed the court that the bail application was filed on May 15, 2026, and supported by a six-paragraph affidavit alongside five documentary exhibits.
The defence lawyer urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the defendant by granting bail on what he described as liberal terms.
However, the application was strongly opposed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which argued that the circumstances surrounding the case did not justify the relief sought.
Counsel to the anti-graft agency, Suleiman Suleiman, told the court that the Commission had filed a 28-paragraph counter-affidavit dated May 29, 2026, through its investigating officer, Bufa Regina Okangbe.
“We rely on all the depositions contained therein and the exhibits attached.
“At some point during the course of the investigation, the defendant stopped honouring invitations extended to her by the Commission.
“We urge Your Lordship not to accede to the request of the defence and instead order an accelerated hearing of the matter,” Suleiman submitted.
Following submissions from both parties, Justice Dipeolu reserved his decision on the bail application until June 9.
Earlier in the proceedings, the prosecution opened its case by calling its first witness, EFCC investigator Bufa Regina Okangbe, who gave detailed testimony on the findings of the Commission’s investigation.
According to the witness, the EFCC received a petition alleging that the defendant obtained N36 million from a petitioner in connection with a property transaction involving a house she allegedly did not own.
Okangbe told the court that after receiving the petition, investigators conducted a Bank Verification Number (BVN) search, which revealed multiple bank accounts linked to the defendant.
She explained that letters were subsequently sent to various financial institutions to obtain transaction records, while separate inquiries were made to the Lagos State Land Bureau to verify ownership of the disputed property.
“The Commission also wrote to the Corporate Affairs Commission regarding the defendant’s company, Break or Makeup Limited.
“After analysing the defendant’s statements of account, she was invited to the Commission’s office and confronted with transactions traced to her and the petitioner,” the witness said.
Okangbe further testified that the defendant made statements under caution in the presence of her husband and legal representative, during which she allegedly acknowledged receiving N30 million from the complainant.
The investigator disclosed that information received from the Lagos State Land Bureau showed that the property at the centre of the dispute was not owned by the defendant but by one Tunbosun Osobu.
According to her, Osobu was later invited by the Commission and appeared alongside his lawyer and son, where he confirmed leasing the property to the defendant for three years. The lease, she said, expired in 2023 before it was renewed in 2025.
The witness also informed the court that investigators obtained a lease agreement allegedly executed between the defendant and the petitioner, as well as a tenancy acquisition form submitted as part of the investigation.
During the hearing, the prosecution tendered several documents, including the original petition, statements allegedly made by the defendant, tenancy records, and bank account statements linked to both the complainant and the defendant.
The defence objected to the admissibility of some of the documents, particularly the defendant’s statements, arguing that there was no indication a legal practitioner was present when they were recorded.
Defence counsel also questioned the absence of video evidence documenting the statement-taking process.
In response, the prosecution maintained that the law does not make the presence of a legal practitioner mandatory in every circumstance and urged the court to admit the statements.
“The law only requires the presence of a legal practitioner or any person chosen by the defendant. The statements are very key to this matter, and we urge My Lord to admit them in evidence,” Suleiman argued.
On the issue of the bank records, the prosecution insisted that all documents complied with the requirements of Section 84 of the Evidence Act and were properly certified.
In his ruling on the objections, Justice Dipeolu admitted the disputed documents as evidence and overruled the arguments raised by the defence.
The judge stated that Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act allows a suspect’s statement to be taken in the presence of a legal practitioner, a representative of the Legal Aid Council, a civil society representative, or any other person chosen by the suspect.
Continuing her testimony, the EFCC investigator told the court that a total of N36 million was paid by the petitioner through a company account to the defendant in connection with the lease transaction.
According to her, N25 million was transferred into the defendant’s GTBank account, while an additional N11 million was paid into her Access Bank account for a property located at No. 1B Tunbosun Osobu Street, Lekki, Lagos.
She further disclosed that investigators traced several subsequent transactions from the defendant’s accounts, including transfers of N8 million to Mr. and Mrs. Osobu, N1.9 million to Beauty City by Lekki, N11 million to the defendant’s mother, Lina Uzoma Okoro, and N15 million to Kenneth Emeka Onuora.
Under cross-examination, Okangbe stated that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which is prosecuting the matter, was not involved in any settlement discussions allegedly reached between the defendant and the complainant.
She also told the court that she had no knowledge of any alleged refund of ₦24 million to the petitioner, contrary to claims made by the defence.
The witness further testified that the complainant had already commenced renovation work on the property before its owner allegedly appeared and removed them from the premises.
Following the day’s proceedings, Justice Dipeolu adjourned the case until June 22, 2026, for continuation of trial.
Blessing Okoro is being prosecuted by the EFCC on a two-count charge bordering on obtaining money by false pretence and stealing.
The anti-graft agency alleges that she obtained N36 million from Mrs. Ifeyinwa Nonye Okoye between July 14 and July 17, 2024, under the pretext of leasing a six-bedroom detached duplex in Lekki, Lagos, a representation the prosecution claims she knew to be false.
