AfriPulse
The absence of a defence counsel, Ibrahim Idris, on Monday stalled the trial of two Abuja-based Lawyers in a Federal Capital Territory (FCT), High Court, Apo.
The defendants are Victor Giwa and Ibitade Bukola.
Giwa and Bukola are charged with forging official documents and impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Awa Kalu, with the intent to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing a criminal charge earlier filed against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama.
At the resumed hearing of the matter, prosecution counsel, T. Y. Silas, announced appearance for the Inspector-General of Police.
Giwa however informed the court that his lead counsel was recuperating from prostate surgery.
The second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje,.
The court drew attention to Giwa’s alleged attempt to arrange a private meeting with the judge in chambers before the case was called.
Giwa told the court that he had suggested a meeting involving the prosecution counsel and counsel to the second defendant, in the presence of the court registrar.
Giwa described it as’ a matter of professional courtesy and ethical practice.’
Justice Onwuegbuzie, however, questioned the propriety of such a move, asking whether it was acceptable for a defendant to seek a private audience with a judge while his case was pending.
Giwa however admitted that such practice was improper.
Responding, prosecution counsel lSilas confirmed that Giwa had approached him regarding the proposed meeting .
He added that he declined after the defendant failed to disclose the purpose of the meeting.
Silas described the attempt as unethical, adding that it was inappropriate for a defendant to seek a private meeting with a trial judge ahead of proceedings.
On the prayer for adjournment by Giwa, Silas argued that today’s date was fixed at the instance of the first defendant.
He cited a letter dated Dec. 10, 2025, in which Giwa’s counsel requested hearing dates in January.
Silas also relied on Section 396(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, noting that parties are limited in the number of adjournments after arraignment.
In addition, he listed several adjournments allegedly occasioned by the first defendant.
He however, urged the court to award costs against Giwa for wasting judicial time if the court eventually grants the adjournment under Section 396(6) of the ACJA.
He argued that the absence of defence counsel was unjustified, especially as a Senior Advocate was expected to have junior counsel available.
Responding, Giwa invoked Section 36(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), insisting on his right to counsel of his choice and rejecting the suggestion that another lawyer could represent him.
He described the request for costs as “mischievous” and maintained that he had not personally benefited from the adjournments.
Counsel to the second defendant aligned with Giwa’s submissions and urged the court to grant an adjournment.
Justice Onwuegbuzie expressed displeasure at the conduct of the defence
He noted that the lead counsel to the first defendant ought to have junior counsel to delegate to represent him in his absence.
He described the explanations offered as unsatisfactory but said the court would “bend backwards” in the interest of justice.
“Although the court found no compelling reason for an adjournment, it nevertheless granted one “to fulfil all righteousness.
“The first defendant had previously appeared with a Senior Advocate and several lawyers but was unrepresented on the day” the judge noted.
Justice Onwuegbuzie then adjourned the matter until Jan. 21, for continuation of hearing.
Source: TheWhistler | Read the Full Story…
