Criticism trails police planned arraignment of Chappal Energies MD over alleged ‘theft’ of own car
By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
The planned arraignment of the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Chappal Energies, Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel before the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Division on Wednesday September 23 by the Police over alleged ‘theft’ of his official car has drawn a lot of criticisms with many questioning the motive behind arraignment.
In the Charge No: 28400C/26, spotted by journalists, the police at the Special Fraud Unit, claimed that Immanuel conspired with others who were not mentioned to steal a Lexus Jeep LA 600F belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Ltd, a company he founded.
The defendant, who is the CEO of the company is currently standing trial before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Special Offences Court Ikeja, in a criminal charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following a petition to the Commission by Immanuel’s business partner, Adebisi Adebutu.
A private commercial dispute involving Immanuel and his business partner Adebisi Adebutu had been turned into a criminal matter by the EFCC, resulting in Immanuel’s arraignment and detention since March 2026, having been refused bail by the trial judge Justice Dada.
Court documents clearly showed that the dispute centred on commercial investment arrangements involving Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited, Intermediate and Investment Holdings Limited; R28 Limited and its founder Adebutu, in connection with investments linked to the acquisition of Equinor Nigeria’s assets.
The issues include disputed shareholding arrangements, subscription rights, investment obligations, financing arrangements and competing corporate interests, which are fundamentally commercial matters.
In the latest charge filed by the police, Immanuel the Founder/ CEO of Chappal Energies is expected to be arraigned before another Judge over alleged theft and dishonest conversion of his official vehicle.
Whereas, the said vehicle remains the company’s property, the police at the Special Fraud Unit have alleged theft against its owner, but failed to identify the purchaser or sale proceeds, raising questions as to what then, is the alleged act of theft, and what deprivation is said to have occurred?
An Abuja based legal practitioner, Soro Chistiantus noted that Immanuel is the company’s founder, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer and remains in those positions until replaced.
He submitted that before preparing an arraignment, the police should answer these questions: What transaction was completed? Who is said to have acquired the vehicle? What money changed hands? What deprivation did the company suffer if the vehicle remains its property?
He argued that the materials provided do not appear to supply clear answers. “That should have prompted the Police to examine whether this was, at most, an internal approval or procurement issue rather than a criminal theft. Instead, scarce fraud-unit resources have been committed to a prosecution in which the disclosed materials do not appear to identify a completed disposal, a buyer, proceeds or permanent deprivation”,he added.
He submitted that “Wednesday’s appearance may therefore present the rare spectacle of a man being placed in the dock for allegedly stealing an asset that the company continues to own.”
A retired Commissioner of police, who spoke on the matter, berated the SFU police for “dragging the image of the police into a mud.”
He expressed shock that the “Police are prosecuting a man over an official vehicle acquired for his use and partly registered in his name and is still the company’s property.”
A company source, who craved anonymity, dismissed the theft allegation as false. He explained that the vehicle had developed several mechanical faults and was already due to be replaced.
According to him, a subsequent routine security sweep reportedly detected three listening devices installed in the car. A formal internal report setting out the discovery of the devices, together with details of the vehicle’s mechanical problems, was then sent to the company. This was not a vehicle being hidden from Chappal. Its location, condition, planned replacement and security concerns were formally reported to Chappal.
Unhappy with the faults and the reported discovery of listening devices, he said Immanuel contacted a private dealer to explore trading in the Lexus for a replacement and personally met the replacement cost.
“The complaint appears to be that he should have approached Chappal’s procurement team before initiating that discussion. Even if that internal procedure should have been followed from the outset, a possible procurement-process lapse is not self-evidently grand theft,” he stressed.
Continuing, he said: “Immanuel subsequently contacted the procurement team, notified the General Counsel and handed the proposed trade-in process over to company personnel to manage.
“The vehicle remains the company’s property. The disclosed prosecution materials do not appear to identify a completed disposal, a purchaser or sale proceeds. What, then, is the alleged act of theft, and what deprivation is said to have occurred? he rhetorically asked.
“The proposed information nevertheless alleges conspiracy and dishonest conversion of a vehicle valued at about N600 million. The proof-of-evidence bundle identifies the originating petition, statements, internal board correspondence, a change-of-ownership document and a police invitation. On the face of those materials, it does not appear to identify a completed disposal, a purchaser, proceeds or permanent deprivation. The unnamed alleged co-conspirators are described as ‘others at large’, while the vehicle remains company property.
“This looks less like sophisticated fraud detection than a disagreement about the sequence in which an executive spoke to a dealer, procurement personnel and the General Counsel. If every alleged failure to consult a procurement department in the preferred order is to become a felony, corporate Nigeria may soon need a police desk beside every purchasing department”, he said.
The planned arraignment comes amid a wider dispute between Chappal Energies, International Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL), Chappal Energies founder, Immanuel who also is the company’s largest shareholder, and R28.
Analysts contend that repeated law-enforcement action was a ploy to keep Immanuel occupied with criminal allegations while the proposed rights issue and questions of control of Chappal Energies advance.
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General of the Federation was said to have directed the EFCC to explain its involvement in the matter pending before Justice Dada said to be purely civil. Sources also hinted that complaints concerning Justice Dada’s handling of that case are before the National Judicial Council.
As the arbitration remains ongoing in London, it was gathered that Adebutu’s R28 claimed it has raised the money for the rights issue, although independently verifiable evidence has not been provided to shareholders.
The rights issue may be capable of transactional completion, but that is not the same as legal closure. Completion describes steps such as funding and allotment; legal closure requires confidence that those steps will survive outstanding legal and regulatory challenges.
“These issues form the backdrop, but they should not distract from the immediate question of how this particular vehicle allegation became a criminal case,” the legal practitioner said
