Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of FCT High Court, Apo, Abuja, on Monday issued a bench warrant against two Abuja-based lawyers.
The duos, Victor Giwa and Ibitade Bukola, were dragged before the court by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Kayode Egbetokun over allegations bordering on forgery and impersonation.
Justice Onwuegbuzie issued the warrant at the resumed hearing in the matter following an application to that effect by the prosecution counsel, Eristo Asaph.
This was as a result of the absence of both defendants to be arraigned on the three-count charge brought against them by the Inspector-General of Police.
In the charge, marked CR/150/25, both defendants were accused of conspiring between themselves to forge a legal document purportedly issued by Awa U. Kalu (SAN) Chambers, with a view to misleading the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice.
According to the prosecution, both Giwa and Bukola, on June 28, 2024, forged and signed a letter on the official letterhead of Awa U. Kalu SAN, requesting the AGF to suspend a scheduled arraignment of Giwa before Justice Samira Nature, also of the High Court of the FCT, sitting at Maitama, scheduled for July 2, 2024.
They were alleged to have written the contentious letter on the letterhead of Awa U Kalu (SAN) Chambers, titled, “Urgent and Solemn Appeal to Suspend the Arraignment of Our Colleague Victor Giwa (Esq) on Charge Number CR/222/2023”, and addressed the same to the AGF.
The purported letter, according to the prosecution, sought the AGF’s intervention to halt Giwa’s arraignment alongside others before Justice Bature and withdrawal of charges against him in the interest of “natural justice, equity and fair play”.
A property developer, Cecil Osakwe Giwa and Edith Erhunmwuse were billed to be arraigned on a nine-count charge bordering on alleged illegal eviction, criminal intimidation, threat to life, and property damage amounting to N300 million before Justice Bature.
The police alleged that the offences committed by both Giwa and Bukola were punishable under Sections 97, 364 and 179 of the Penal Code Act, 2004.
At the scheduled arraignment of the defendants on Monday, both of them were absent from court, while their counsel, Ogbu Aboje, told the court that Giwa’s absence was a result of his health challenge.
According to Aboje, Giwa had written a letter informing the court of the degenerative lumbar condition the first defendant was battling with.
Aboje told the court that Ibitade, on her part, was absent in court due to a medical appointment for the immunisation of her daughter.
He, therefore, urged the court to invoke its power under Section 266(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act to excuse the absence of the defendants, saying that they were even raising a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.
Responding to the defence counsel’s submission, Asaph told the court that Giwa’s letter did not show that he (Giwa) could not go out to carry out his business.
According to him, the ailment can be easily managed.
“In view of this, we urge the court to discountenance the said letter.”
The prosecutor said there was no document placed before the court to show that the second defendant had an appointment, and then urged the court to refuse the reason given for her absence in court.
He said that, contrary to Section 266 (b) cited by the defence counsel, the case before the court is a criminal matter.
He added that the section cited by Aboje talks about interlocutory matters.
“In a criminal matter, Section 396(2) of ACJA states that until arraignment is taken, the defendant cannot raise a preliminary objection,” adding that the defendants have been trying to evade arraignment.
Asaph subsequently applied for a bench warrant to be issued by the court against the two lawyers to compel their appearance before the court at the next adjourned date.
Reacting to the prosecution’s application, Aboje urged the court to reject it and drew the court’s attention to the explanation he made on the defendants’ absence.
According to him, out of respect, the first defendant deemed it necessary to notify the court of his health condition.
In a brief ruling, the judge held that though there was a medical report before the court, it did not say that the first defendant could not come to court.
He, therefore, ordered a bench warrant against the defendants in line with Section 352 of ACJA.
He subsequently adjourned until Oct. 8 for their arraignment.
