For nearly six years, Accountant Iniobong Okon Essien endured trial as the prime suspect in the alleged 20 million Naira theft from Akwa Ibom State Judiciary, risking lengthy imprisonment.
Source reveals that, when judgment finally came on February 18, 2026, it was a victory for the embattled Mr. Essien who is a judiciary staff.
Court Dissects Intent vs. Negligence, Acquits Judiciary Staff
Justice Bassey B. Nkanang of Akwa Ibom High Court, Uyo, delivered a detailed judgment distinguishing criminal intent from negligence.
He discharged and acquitted the defendant, upholding administrative oversight over proven felony.
Judgment in HU/182C/2020 came six years after August 2020 filing and February 14, 2020 incident.
Accountant II Essien Faces Conspiracy Charges in Court
Accountant II Mr. Essien with Akwa Ibom State Judiciary faced a two-count charge of felony conspiracy.
Charges violated Section 552, Criminal Code Cap. 38, Vol. 2, Akwa Ibom State Laws 2000.
Additionally, stealing under Section 408, same Criminal Code volume and Akwa Ibom State Laws 2000.
Prosecutors charged defendant and others at large conspired on February 14, 2020, at Uyo Judiciary Headquarters.
They allegedly committed felony: stealing N20,000,000.00, property of Akwa Ibom State Judiciary.
When trial commenced on November 2, 2021, the prosecution, led by Akaninyene Akpan, Esq., a Chief State Counsel in the Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Justice, painted a picture of sabotage.
The prosecution’s case hinged on a timeline of events surrounding February 13 and 14, 2020.
Chief Accountant Udofot Etukudo Testifies as Key Witness
According to the first prosecution witness, Mrs. Udofot Etukudo, the then Chief Accountant of the Judiciary, two cheques were prepared and approved for the withdrawal of N20 million from Zenith Bank Plc.
The money was meant for legitimate Judiciary expenses.
Mrs. Etukudo testified that around 11:00 am on February 13, 2020, approval was given for the defendant to apply for funds to hire a bullion van and pay for police escorts to convey the money safely.
She tendered Exhibit 1, a letter written by the defendant to the Acting Chief Registrar applying for those funds, which bore approval stamps.
Crucially, Mrs. Etukudo told the court that the defendant did not go to the bank on February 13, despite having the cheques and the approval.
He offered no reasonable excuse for the delay, she said.
Essien’s Solo Camry Bank Trip Photographed in Exhibit
The following day, February 14, Mr. Essien reportedly went to the bank alone, using his private black Toyota Camry with registration number LAGOS TC 127 KJA.
A fact captured in Exhibit 5, a photograph tendered by the prosecution showing the defendant standing beside the car.
The prosecution argued that by using a private saloon car to convey N20 million in cash, in flagrant violation of Treasury Circular No. 2 of 2010 on conveying bulk cash, the defendant set the stage for the theft.
Security Chief Testifies: Boot Money Vanished Post-Return
The second prosecution witness, Dr. Godwin Dickson Akpan, the then Chief Security Officer of the Judiciary, testified that upon the defendant’s return to the Judiciary Headquarters, the money, kept in the boot of the car, was discovered missing.
He told the court that the car showed no signs of forced entry, and all four doors and the boot were intact.
The prosecution prayed the court to agree that the defendant, either personally or through collaborators, removed the money and staged a fake theft.
Trial Admits Key Letters, Statements, Photo, Reports
Trial admitted defendant’s February 13, 2020, letter applying for funds to convey cash to the bank.
Prosecution tendered Godwin Dickson Akpan’s extrajudicial statement from Anti-Robbery Squad, dated February 18, 2020.
Court accepted Iniobong Okon Essien’s statements: February 14 at Uyo ‘A’ Division; February 18 at Anti-Robbery Squad.
Exhibits included Camry photo (LAGOS TC 127 KJA), Evidence Act certificate, Ekpenyong’s February 20 report.
Exhibits featured Ms. Roseline U. Etukudo’s February 14, 2020, query to defendant; his March 9 reply to Acting Chief Registrar.
Court admitted witness summons: March 29, 2023, for Ime Itohowo Inim; March 24 for Udeme Udo Obong.
Defence Team Calls Three Witnesses, Including Defendant
The defence, led by Dominic Okon, Esq., with Oscar Sylvanus, Amarachi Mba, and Blessing Bassey, called three witnesses, including the defendant.
Mr. Essien testified that he used his personal car because the approved sum of 50,000 Naira was not madr available to pay for a bullion van.
He denied any involvement in the theft and insisted he was a victim of circumstance.
But the most significant testimony came from two defence witnesses who were staff of the Judiciary.
Clerical Officer Witnesses Unknown Men at Boot
DW2 Ime Itohowo Inim saw unrecognized men carrying bags from defendant’s car boot on incident day.
She said she assumed they were assigned to offload the vehicle and thought nothing of it until the alarm was raised.
Auditor DW3 Corroborates Unknown Men Account
DW3, Udeme Udo Obong, of the Internal Audit Unit, corroborated this account.
He testified that he also saw unknown persons removing bags from the vehicle before the defendant raised any alarm about a theft.
The prosecution neither discredited their testimony, nor did they call any witness to rebut the claim that unknown persons were seen with the bags.
After the trial concluded on June 18, 2025, both counsel filed their final written addresses.
Defence Files Sole Issue Address September 2025
In the defence final written address filed on September 22, 2025, Barr. Dominic Okon formulated a sole issue for determination.
“Whether the prosecution has proved the offences of conspiracy and stealing against the defendant to secure his conviction and sentence.”
Counsel argued prosecution failed Section 392(1): no eyewitness, confessional statement, or compelling circumstantial evidence proved fraudulent intent.
He described the evidence of prosecution witnesses as largely hearsay and urged the court to discharge his client.
Prosecution Akpan Responds with Same Issue October
In a response, filed on October 9, 2025, the prosecution counsel, Barr. Akpan, formulated this issue.
“Whether the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof and proven the two counts charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.”
He cited ADEPETU vs. STATE (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 565) 185 to argue that conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
He pointed to the defendant’s unusual conduct, the delay, the use of a private car, the intact condition of the vehicle after the alleged theft, as facts from which the court should logically infer guilt.
He also cited Section 356 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 39, Vol. 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 (which re-enacted the old Section 408).
He argued that the stolen money’s value (N20 million) exceeded the N10,000 threshold to establish the offence.
Justice Nkanang Adopts Defence Issue in Judgment
On February 18, 2026, Justice Nkanang delivered judgment, adopting defence’s sole issue for determination.
He confirmed the first two stealing ingredients, property ownership and its stealability, remained undisputed.
The only question was whether the defendant was responsible for fraudulently taking or converting the money.
Judge Reviews Three Crime Proof Methods
The judge reviewed the three ways of proving a crime: eyewitness account, confessional statement, and circumstantial evidence.
He noted that there was no eyewitness and no confession, leaving the prosecution to rely on circumstantial evidence.
Citing ADA CHINYERE NDUKWU v. THE STATE (2022) LPELR-58440(CA) , the judge stated: “Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to ground a conviction, must be complete and unequivocal.
It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant and no one else did the deed.”
Counsel Cites Cases: Circumstantial Evidence Proves Guilt Cogently
Counsel cited Omokaro v. State (2025), Nere v. State (2025): circumstantial evidence must prove guilt exclusively, cogently.
The judge then turned to the testimony of DW2 and DW3.
“There is no evidence whatsoever, direct or circumstantial, from which the court could infer that the defendant planted those men.
“Drawing from the evidence and the inference of the possibility that some other person(s), completely unconnected with the defendant, could have stolen the money.
The court finds that the sum of money could have been stolen independent of the act, intent, and will of the defendant,” he declared.
Judge Cites Sodiq Case on Proof
The judge further cited KAZEEM ORIYOMI SODIQ v. THE STATE (2020) LPELR-49760(CA) , where the Court of Appeal held.
“The law is settled that if there are any doubts arising from the case of the prosecution as to the guilt of the accused, such doubt will be resolved in favour of the accused.
Suspicion remains suspicion and cannot graduate to convincing evidence no matter how grave.”
On Count One, judge cited Uwakwem case (2025): conspiracy remains distinct from the substantive offence itself.
He cited OLUKAYODE ADEOYE v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2019) LPELR-47299(CA): Acquittal on substantive offense makes conspiracy conviction unreasonable without independent evidence.
“Having found that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of stealing, and there being no independent evidence of an agreement to commit the illegal act, the charge of conspiracy cannot be sustained,” the judge held.
Nkanang Acquits Defendant on Both Counts
But he added a caveat: “the recklessness and negligence of the defendant, arising from his conduct.
He failed to bank cheques on issuance day, using personal car for huge cash despite security approval.
Leaving bags of money in his car, would certainly attract administrative or disciplinary action.
But it does not amount to the criminal intent required to prove the offence of stealing.”
After judgment, defence counsel Barr. Dominic Okon told newsmen: Verdict is “triumph of justice; criminal liability can’t rest on suspicion alone.”
He added: “the court has rightly drawn the line between negligence and criminal intent. Our client can now move on with his life.”
The prosecution counsel, Barr. Akaninyene Akpan, was not available for a comment, when approached.
Legal practitioners, civil society organizations, and media closely watched the case.
