Court strikes out criminal case against Taraba media executive

The Upper Area Court No. 7 in Jalingo, Taraba State, on Wednesday struck out a criminal case against media executive and publisher Gabriel Olayinka over an alleged ₦300 million breach of trust.

Mr Olayinka is the Chief Executive Officer of SUM TV and publisher of Taraba News, a media organisation operating in Taraba State.

He is also the pioneer chairman of the Taraba News/SUM TV Chapel of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ).

The case was instituted by Danladi Jibrin, who accused Mr Olayinka of criminal breach of trust and cheating in connection with a financial transaction involving about ₦300 million.

Mr Olayinka had denied the allegations.

His counsel, L.L. Tadok of P.D. Pius & Co. Chambers, filed a preliminary objection challenging the Upper Area Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The defence argued that the dispute was civil in nature and also raised questions about the court’s jurisdiction, including the fact that the matter had originally been filed before a chief magistrate’s court.

Counsel to the complainant, D.G. Tukura, consented to the preliminary objection on the jurisdictional issue during Wednesday’s proceedings.

In his ruling, the presiding judge, Lawan Jika, upheld the objection and struck out the case for want of jurisdiction.

The judge consequently discharged Mr Olayinka from the proceedings before the Upper Area Court.

The case had previously attracted attention after Mr Olayinka spent several months in custody.

Earlier proceedings included orders directing banks to produce financial records connected to Taraba Business School, a business associated with him.

READ ALSO: CJN charges judges to uphold integrity matching beauty of new industrial court’s headquarters

Mr Olayinka’s media career extends beyond publishing. During the inauguration of the Taraba News/SUM TV Chapel in 2025, the NUJ Taraba State Council described him as a professional accountant who later ventured into journalism and media management.

The court’s decision does not amount to an acquittal on the substance of the allegations; rather, the criminal proceedings before the Upper Area Court ended after the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.