Social media celebrity, Ismaila Mustapha, popularly known as Mompha, on Monday challenged the ruling of an Ikeja Special Offences Court over alleged six billion naira money laundering charges.

Mompha is facing trial alongside his company, Ismalob Global Investment Ltd.

They are being tried on an eight-count charge bordering on conspiracy to launder unlawfully obtained funds, retention of crime proceeds, and non-disclosure of assets.

He was arraigned on Jan. 12, 2022, and is being tried in absentia.

When the case was called on Monday, Mompha’s lawyer, Mr. Kolawole Salami, informed the court that the defendants had filed an application seeking leave to appeal the court’s ruling delivered on Nov. 4, 2025, which dismissed their no-case submission in the ongoing trial.

Salami said that the defendants, being dissatisfied with the court’s decision, had sought leave to challenge the ruling.

He said the defendants believed that no prima facie case had been established by the prosecution to warrant them entering a defence.

Salami expressed confidence that the appellate court would uphold their no-case submission and overturn the lower court’s decision.

He added that the defendants were committed to prosecuting the appeal diligently and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought in the interest of justice.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) counsel, Mr. Suleiman Suleiman, told the court that the case was scheduled for the defence to open its case.

He said he was unaware of the defence application and opposed it, urging the court to direct the defendants to proceed with their defence.

“This case has been ongoing since 2021 and adjourned since 2025 for the defence to open their case.

“They had ample time to prepare, but coming to court with such an application today is not proper,” Suleiman said.

In response, Salami maintained that the application to appeal the ruling on the no-case submission had been filed and served on the prosecution since Nov. 26, 2025.

Justice Mojisola Dada thereafter directed the defence to proceed with its case, noting that filing an appeal was the constitutional right of the defendants and that the application could be addressed after the day’s proceedings.

“You are aware of today’s proceedings. You have the right to appeal. It is your constitutional right,” Dada said.

However, defence counsel informed the court that he was unable to produce his witness, explaining that the witness was unaware of the hearing date and was currently outside the court’s jurisdiction.

He consequently prayed the court for another adjournment, assuring that the witness would be present at the next sitting.

The court warned that it would not tolerate delay tactics and described the adjournment as the last indulgence.

The court had on Nov. 4, 2025, dismissed a no-case submission of the defendants and ordered them to open their defence.

The case was adjourned until April 28 for continuation of trial. (NAN)