PROCEEDINGS in the prosecution of former Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr Chris Ngige, took a dramatic turn on Monday as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the defence engaged in a heated legal battle over an allegedly missing international passport and whether the ex-minister should be granted bail.
News Point Nigeria reports that the Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Gwarimpa, Abuja, presided over by Justice Maryam Hassan, adjourned the matter until Thursday, December 18, 2025, for ruling on Ngige’s bail application in a case bordering on an alleged ₦2.2 billion contract fraud.
The courtroom exchanges centred on claims by the EFCC that Ngige breached the conditions of an earlier administrative bail by failing to return his international passport after travelling abroad for medical reasons.
Leading the prosecution, Sylvanus Tahir, SAN, told the court that Ngige travelled to London for medical treatment but returned to Nigeria on November 14 without surrendering his passport to the anti-graft agency as required.
Tahir argued that the former minister’s explanation that the passport was lost in London was procedurally flawed and legally unacceptable.
According to him, if the passport was indeed lost abroad, Ngige ought to have reported the matter to the police in the United Kingdom and deposed to an affidavit of loss there, rather than in Nigeria.
“The right procedure was to deponent an affidavit in the UK and report the loss to the local police,” Tahir submitted.
He maintained that the failure to do so amounted to a breach of trust and a violation of the terms of the administrative bail earlier granted by the commission.
By breaching those conditions, Tahir said, Ngige had effectively forfeited the privilege of administrative bail and undermined the integrity of the criminal justice process.
“The defendant has undermined and jeopardised the bail system and the objectives of criminal justice,” the EFCC lawyer told the court, urging Justice Hassan to deny the bail application.
However, Ngige’s defence team, led by Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, strongly disputed the EFCC’s claims, insisting that the passport was genuinely lost during the London trip and that all necessary steps were taken to formally report the incident.
Ikwueto told the court that documentary evidence had been filed showing that the loss was reported to the United Kingdom Home Office, as well as to the Nigerian High Commission in London and in Abuja.
He argued that the defence had gone beyond mere oral claims and had provided credible documentary proof to support its position.
“Documents command greater authenticity than oral testimony,” Ikwueto said.
The senior lawyer questioned the EFCC’s insistence that Ngige posed a flight risk, noting that the former minister no longer had an international passport and was forced to return to Nigeria using an emergency travel certificate.
According to the defence, the emergency travel certificate issued to Ngige was a single-use document valid only for his return to Nigeria, effectively ruling out any possibility of absconding.
“If the defendant has no passport and no new travel document, how can he pose a flight risk?” Ikwueto asked.
He further argued that the EFCC had failed to properly investigate or disprove the claim that the passport was lost, adding that the prosecution’s objections were speculative.
The defence also drew the court’s attention to Ngige’s age and health condition, particularly his eye-related medical challenges, stressing that he requires constant medical care.
Ikwueto told the court that Ngige was no longer a serving minister, had no prior criminal record, and therefore posed no risk of interfering with witnesses or committing further offences.
He urged the court to grant bail on reasonable conditions to allow the former minister manage his health while facing trial.
In response, Tahir reiterated the EFCC’s position that granting bail in the circumstances would set a dangerous precedent.
He argued that administrative bail conditions are binding and cannot be treated lightly, warning that overlooking non-compliance would weaken enforcement and accountability.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Hassan adjourned the matter to December 18 for a ruling on the bail application.