“No Fresh Criminal Charge Has Been Instituted Against Our Client” — Deji Adeyanju & Partners Clarify Position In Dr John Abebe’s Trial

Lawyers to Dr John Abebe, who is standing trial before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory over an alleged in vitro fertilisation fraud, have dismissed reports that fresh criminal charges have been filed against the physician and his hospital, Joje Abebe Hospital Limited.

The clarification was issued by the law firm Deji Adeyanju & Partners, which also condemned what it described as the media trial of its client.

The firm set out its position on the record.

“We are Counsel to Dr. John Abebe in the ongoing judicial proceedings pending at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, wherein a certain Mr. Adamu Hassan Turaki and his wife, Mrs Mary Manga Turaki, are the nominal complainants,” it stated.

“There are misleading reports alleging that a fresh criminal charge has been filed against our client and two others. We wish to unequivocally state that no fresh criminal charge has been instituted against our client. The correct position is that a few months ago, the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation took over the prosecution of the same Charge No. CR/005/26 from the Police.”

The firm added that an amended charge filed in the matter has not been moved in court.

Counsel said the coverage risks prejudicing proceedings that are yet to be determined, and warned that an agenda exists to convict the doctor in the court of public opinion while the case remains pending.

“They are also observably calculated to furtively achieve an unwarranted reputational damage to persons who remain entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence,” the firm stated.

It continued: “We emphasise that allegations contained in a criminal charge remain allegations until determined by a competent court on the basis of admissible evidence.”

The firm concluded: “Continuing with the trend hints at a resolve to secure conviction in the court of public opinion rather than in the court room.”

Dr Abebe, who is also a pastor with the Living Faith Church, Durumi, Abuja, was arraigned in March 2026 before Justice A.A. Fashola of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Charge No. CR/005/2026. He pleaded not guilty and was admitted to bail in the sum of N5 million with a reliable surety. Balkis Olanike Bakare is listed as a co-defendant. The matter was originally investigated and filed by the Inspector-General of Police on behalf of the nominal complainants.

In a three-count charge, the doctor is accused of unlawfully releasing the confidential medical records of Mrs Mary Manga and her husband to the public without her consent, an offence said to contravene Section 29 of the National Health Act 2014. The prosecution’s case on that count is that the couple’s records were exposed to third parties by being attached to a pre-action demand notice sent through his lawyers.

The charge further alleges that, between January and May 2025, the doctor, described as a chief consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, collected N10 million from the couple for in vitro fertilisation, and that the money was converted to personal use, contrary to the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006. Some later reports have put the total sum alleged at N19 million.

Reports of the prosecution’s case have also referred to allegations concerning the handling of the couple’s embryos. Those allegations have not been tested in court.

The central argument advanced on the doctor’s behalf is that the matter is a contractual dispute over the outcomes and processes of fertility treatment rather than a criminal venture, and that the medical procedures adhered to established standard practice.

The renewed wave of coverage followed the Attorney-General of the Federation’s exercise of the power to take over the prosecution from the police. Because that step was accompanied by an amended charge sheet reflecting the change of prosecuting authority, several outlets reported it as the opening of a new criminal case, which prompted the firm’s rebuttal.