SIERRA LEONEAN ACCUSED OF DIVERTING $190,324 SENT BY 70-YEAR-OLD WOMAN TO BUY LAGOS PROPERTY

Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has arraigned a Sierra Leonean national, Favour Foday Kamara, over allegations that he dishonestly converted $190,324 sent to him by a 70-year-old woman living in the United States for the purchase and renovation of a property in Lagos. Kamara appeared before Justice O. A. Okunuga of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja on Tuesday, October 20, where he was charged on two counts involving alleged stealing and fraudulent conversion. He pleaded not guilty to both charges and has been ordered to remain at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre pending further proceedings, with the case adjourned until October 29.

The complainant, Henrietta Vandi, is also Sierra Leonean and is based in the United States. According to the prosecution’s account, Vandi met Kamara during a visit to the Synagogue Church of All Nations between 2019 and 2020, after which he allegedly encouraged her to invest in Nigeria. Prosecutors say the relationship later developed into an arrangement under which Vandi sent substantial sums of money to Kamara for the purchase and renovation of residential property in Lagos. The allegations have not been proven in court, and Kamara remains legally presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution establishes the charges beyond the required legal standard.

The money was allegedly transferred in several instalments using different channels, including Ria, Western Union, MoneyGram and cash deposits into an Access Bank account linked to Kamara. Investigators say the intended purpose of the funds was to buy and renovate a property located at 20/30 Gbenga Ogunleye/Atobatele Street, Cele Bus Stop, Araromi, Alimosho, Lagos. The prosecution alleges that rather than holding the property in a manner reflecting Vandi’s financial interest, the property was eventually purchased and registered in Kamara’s own name.

Investigators further allege that Kamara later took possession of the property, lived there and collected rent from tenants. That allegation is central to the prosecution’s case because the EFCC is arguing that the funds were not merely mishandled during a legitimate investment transaction but were dishonestly converted for Kamara’s personal benefit. The defence has not yet presented its full case, and there has been no judicial finding that the property was in fact unlawfully acquired or that Kamara acted dishonestly.

One of the counts before the court alleges that between August 2021 and February 2025, Kamara dishonestly converted the sum of $190,324 belonging to Vandi to his own use in Lagos. Prosecutors say that conduct amounts to stealing under Sections 278(1)(b) and 285(9) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011. The second count also relates to the alleged fraudulent use of the funds connected to the property transaction.

Kamara entered a not guilty plea when the charges were read to him. His plea means the case will now move beyond arraignment into the evidentiary stage, where prosecutors will be required to present witnesses, transfer records, property documents and other material intended to support the allegations. The defence will also have the opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, cross-examine witnesses and present its own explanation of the financial arrangements between Kamara and Vandi.

After the plea, prosecution counsel Nnaemeka Omewa asked the court to fix a date for trial and requested that Kamara be remanded in a correctional facility. Justice Okunuga granted the request and ordered that he be held at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre. The matter was then adjourned to October 29, 2026, for further proceedings.

The case is likely to focus heavily on documentary evidence because much of the allegation concerns the movement of money across international transfer platforms and the eventual ownership of property in Lagos. Investigators are expected to rely on records from money-transfer services, bank statements and property documentation in attempting to establish the flow of funds and the relationship between the transfers and the real estate purchase. The defence may seek to challenge whether the money was sent under the exact conditions claimed by the complainant or whether there were other agreements governing ownership, management or use of the property.

The allegation that funds were transferred using multiple channels over several years could make the financial history particularly important. Transfers through Ria, Western Union and MoneyGram generally generate transaction records, while bank deposits into an Access Bank account could provide further evidence showing dates, amounts and account ownership. Those records may help the court determine whether the total amount alleged by prosecutors can be clearly traced and whether the transfers were connected directly to the property.

The ownership documents will likely be equally important. Prosecutors allege that the property was bought in Kamara’s name despite Vandi providing the money for its purchase and renovation. If property records confirm ownership in Kamara’s name, that fact alone would not automatically establish criminal liability because the court would still need to determine what the parties had agreed and whether there was dishonest intent. The prosecution will therefore need to connect the registration of the property to an alleged plan to deprive Vandi of her money or property interest.

The age of the complainant adds another dimension to the case because prosecutors have specifically identified her as a 70-year-old woman living abroad. Cross-border investment arrangements involving elderly people can raise concerns about financial vulnerability, particularly when large sums are transferred to individuals in another country without direct control over the resulting asset. However, the complainant’s age does not itself prove wrongdoing, and the case must still be determined on the evidence relating to the specific transactions and agreements.

The alleged relationship between the two began in a religious setting, according to the prosecution’s account. Vandi is said to have met Kamara during a visit to the Synagogue Church of All Nations, after which conversations about investment in Nigeria allegedly followed. Prosecutors may attempt to show that trust developed through that relationship and that Vandi relied on Kamara to manage the property transaction on her behalf.

The defence may dispute the prosecution’s interpretation of that relationship and could argue that the financial dealings were part of a legitimate arrangement that later broke down. Real estate disputes can sometimes involve disagreements over beneficial ownership, informal partnerships or expectations that were never fully documented. The criminal court will therefore need to distinguish between a failed private investment arrangement and conduct amounting to criminal stealing or fraudulent conversion.

The fact that the EFCC brought criminal charges indicates that investigators believe the available evidence goes beyond an ordinary civil disagreement. The commission routinely investigates financial crimes involving alleged fraud, money laundering, dishonest conversion and other economic offences. In this case, prosecutors say the investigation concluded that the money was meant for Vandi’s investment but that the resulting asset was allegedly controlled by Kamara for his own benefit.

The next court date on October 29 is expected to determine the immediate direction of the proceedings. The court may consider additional applications, including any request for bail, procedural issues and arrangements for the prosecution to begin presenting evidence. Because Kamara has been remanded at Ikoyi Correctional Centre, his legal team may seek release on bail while the trial continues, although any such application will be decided by the court.

No conviction has been recorded and no court has ruled that Kamara stole or fraudulently converted the money. Reporting on the case therefore requires continued use of terms such as alleged, accused and prosecution claims until the court reaches a final determination. His not guilty plea remains the operative defence position at this stage.

The case also highlights the financial risks that can arise when people living abroad invest in property through private intermediaries without direct control over title registration, payments and documentation. Diaspora property investment is common across West Africa, with many people sending funds to relatives, friends, agents or trusted associates to buy land, build homes or renovate properties. Those arrangements can work successfully, but disputes can become difficult to resolve when ownership documents do not reflect the person who provided the money.

For investors, the most important safeguards usually involve independent legal verification, direct access to transaction records and ensuring that title documents clearly reflect the agreed ownership structure. Where large sums are involved, relying entirely on personal trust can create serious legal and financial exposure if the relationship later breaks down. This case will likely attract attention precisely because the alleged amount is substantial and because the complainant was living outside Nigeria while the property transaction was taking place.

The court will also need to examine whether the alleged $190,324 represents the full amount sent for both purchase and renovation or whether different portions were intended for different purposes. Prosecutors have presented the figure as the total amount allegedly converted, but the detailed evidence may show how individual transfers were allocated and whether any money was actually spent on acquiring or improving the property.

If the property exists and was renovated, the court may also need to determine whether its value, rental income and ownership history support or contradict the prosecution’s case. The allegation that Kamara lives in the property and collects rent could be used by prosecutors to argue that he treated the asset as personally owned. The defence could respond by producing evidence of a management arrangement or other agreement if one existed.

The case is also likely to involve testimony from Vandi, either physically or through a legally accepted procedure if she remains in the United States. Her account of what she understood the investment arrangement to be will be central to the prosecution’s case because prosecutors must establish not just that money changed hands but that Kamara allegedly dealt with it dishonestly.

Kamara’s own statements and records may be equally important. If there are messages, emails, receipts or documents showing discussions about who would own the property, how rent would be handled or whether Kamara was entitled to any interest, those materials could become critical during trial. The existence or absence of a written agreement may strongly influence how the court interprets the parties’ intentions.

The prosecution’s legal theory rests on the claim that the money belonged to Vandi and was entrusted to Kamara for a specific purpose but was then converted to his own use. To secure a conviction, prosecutors will need to prove the elements required under Lagos State criminal law and show that any personal use of the property or funds was dishonest rather than authorised.

The defence will have the opportunity to test every part of that case. It can challenge the amount alleged, the ownership of the funds, the interpretation of the property transaction and any claim that Kamara intended to permanently deprive Vandi of her money. A not guilty plea means none of the prosecution’s allegations should be treated as established fact before that process takes place.

The October 29 adjournment gives both sides additional time to prepare. Prosecutors are expected to organise financial records and witness testimony, while the defence may consider bail and other preliminary applications. Depending on the complexity of the evidence, the trial could continue over multiple hearings rather than being resolved quickly.

The case has already attracted attention because it combines a cross-border investment dispute, an elderly complainant, a six-figure dollar amount and property ownership in Lagos. Those elements make the allegations serious, but they also make careful reporting particularly important because the reputational consequences for a defendant can be significant before a court has determined guilt.

The confirmed facts at this stage are that Favour Foday Kamara, a Sierra Leonean national, has been arraigned before a Lagos State High Court on two counts relating to alleged stealing and fraudulent conversion involving $190,324. The complainant, Henrietta Vandi, is a 70-year-old Sierra Leonean woman based in the United States. Prosecutors say she transferred money for the purchase and renovation of a property in Lagos, while investigators allege that the property was subsequently purchased in Kamara’s name and that he lives there and collects rent.

It is also confirmed that Kamara pleaded not guilty, was remanded at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre and will return to court on October 29. Everything beyond those established procedural facts remains subject to proof at trial. The coming hearings will determine whether prosecutors can substantiate their allegations and whether the defence can provide an alternative explanation for the financial transactions and property ownership at the centre of the case.