There was a mild drama at a Federal Capital Territory, FCT, High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja on Tuesday when a lawyer, Abubakar Mohammed, who was briefed to only observe proceedings stood up and told Justice Samira Bature that the case before her is being delayed.
Mohammed was representing the complainant, Asabe Waziri, who had alleged that she was illegally evicted from a property in the Maitama District of Abuja, where she lived. The lawyer was however only briefed to observe proceedings before the court.
The defendants in the case – a human rights lawyer, Victor Giwa, Cecil Osakwe and Ms Edith Erhunmuuse – were accused of illegally ejecting Asabe from the property.
Shortly after Mohammed spoke during Tuesday’s proceedings, Giwa stood up and told the court that the counsel has no right to talk as he was only in the court to announce appearance and watch proceedings on behalf of the complainant.
Giwa explained that the lawyer, Mohammed was his staff but has now been hired by Asabe to appear in the case against him.
“The alleged victim (Asabe) is the one harassing me, she is now using my former staff against me in court.
“He (Mohammed) has no right to address the court, his mission in this court is only to watch brief for the victim,” Giwa said.
The presiding judge, Justice Bature, in her response, agreed with Giwa and said that she did not record everything Mohammed said in the court.
However, the case could not go on due to the absence of one of the respondents, Erhunmuuse, who was said to be absent because of ill health and could not afford a lawyer.
The judge adjourned the case to 24th April, 2024.
At the last adjourned date, the court was told that the case had earlier suffered delays, including an adjournment to allow the third defendant, Erhunmuuse, secure legal representation.
Although the third defendant is now represented by a lawyer, Mr C. C. Onyechere, she was absent from court on Tuesday, with her counsel attributing her absence to ill health.
The prosecution also informed the court that at a previous sitting, proceedings were stalled as the counsel handling the matter was said to be on official assignment outside the country.
Justice Bature recalled that the court had warned against delays capable of frustrating the arraignment of the defendants.
In her ruling, Justice Bature held that the matter had suffered several adjournments and that no further adjournment will be tolerated.
The judge further directed that all pending applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction would be taken when the prosecution is present to respond.
Emphasising the need for fairness, Justice Bature stated that “in the interest of justice, both parties must be given the opportunity to be heard”.
The judge also ordered counsel to the third defendant to ensure his client’s appearance in court on the next adjourned date. The counsel was equally directed to counsel to ensure that the prosecution is duly served with the necessary notice.
Eze Chidiebere Paul
I'm dedicated to creating high-quality content that informs, inspires, and delights. If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to get in touch. Happy reading!
