The trial of Ayodele Toyosi, the promoter of Reaprite Global Limited and Agrorite Limited, continued before Justice Olubunmi Abike-Fadipe of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, with the first prosecution witness detailing how he and his family were allegedly defrauded in an agribusiness investment scheme.
Toyosi, alongside his two companies, is standing trial on an 11-count charge brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) bordering on obtaining by false pretence and stealing to the tune of N600,000,000 and $50,000.
The EFCC alleges that the defendant lured multiple investors with promises of high-yield returns from agricultural exports.
James Emadoye, a chartered accountant and IT expert, testified as the first prosecution witness.
Being led in a witness account by the prosecuting counsel, Deborah Ademu-etteh, he told the court that the defendant approached him and his wife with an offer to invest in agronomy. Convinced by the proposal, they committed a total of forty million naira and $50,000 across three investments.
Read Also: EFCC Arraigns 2 Investors For Laundering About a Billion Naira
Emadoye said issues arose when their daughter required tuition payment for schooling abroad.
He contacted the defendant to liquidate part of the investment, at which point Toyosi allegedly issued two cheques.
However, when the cheques were presented at the bank, they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Upon discussing the matter with his brother who had also invested with the same company, Emadoye learned that Toyosi had become unreachable and evasive.
This led him to petition the EFCC on behalf of himself, his wife, his brother, and another affected investor.
During proceedings, the court admitted into evidence the petition, the bounced cheques, and certificates of investment.
Also Read: Ex-First Bank Staff Loses Properties to Government Over Alleged N35 Billion Fraud
Under cross-examination by Defence Counsel Olalekan Ojo, SAN, Emadoye confirmed he understood the nature and risks of investment and that the terms were clearly outlined in the certificates.
He acknowledged that such disputes are generally handled in civil court but explained that he did not pursue civil litigation because of Toyosi’s evasiveness and the dishonoured cheques, which he viewed as criminal conduct.
He further confirmed that several efforts were made to resolve the matter amicably but that the defendant failed to honour agreed terms.
He reiterated that, while investment carries inherent risks, the failure to refund or communicate made the case beyond a normal business dispute.
Prosecuting counsel, Deborah Ademu-etteh, is expected to call more witnesses as the trial progresses.
The case was adjourned to a later date for continuation of trial.
