There was a mild drama at a Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, when a lawyer, Abubakar Mohammed, who was hired only to observe proceedings, stood up and told Justice Samira Bature that the case before her was being delayed.
Mohammed was hired by Asabe Waziri, who had complained to the Attorney-General that she was illegally evicted from a property in the Maitama District of Abuja, to watch and observe proceedings before the court.
Lawyers Victor Giwa, Cecil Osakwe, and Ms. Edith Erhunmuuse were accused of illegally ejecting Asabe from the property.
Shortly after Mohammed spoke, Giwa stood up and told the court that counsel to Asabe, Mohammed, had no right to address the court, as he was only present to announce appearances and observe proceedings.
Mohammed had been hired to watch the brief of Asabe in court.
According to Giwa, “The victim (Asabe) is the one harassing me; she is now using my former staff against me in court. He has no right to address the court; his mission is only to watch the brief for the victim.”
Justice Bature agreed with Giwa, noting that she did not record everything Mohammed said in court.
The case could not proceed due to the absence of Erhunmuuse, who was reported to be ill and unable to afford legal representation. The case was adjourned to April 24, 2024.
At the last adjourned date, the court was told that the case had suffered previous delays, including an adjournment to allow the third defendant to secure legal representation.
Although the third defendant is now represented by counsel, Mr. C. C. Onyechere, she was absent from court, with her counsel attributing her absence to ill health.
The prosecution also informed the court that at a previous sitting, proceedings were stalled after 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 although the matter had suffered several adjournments, no further adjournment would 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.
Emphasizing the need for fairness, Justice Bature stated, “In the interest of justice, both parties must be given the opportunity to be heard.”
She also ordered counsel to the third defendant to ensure her client’s appearance in court on the next adjourned date and that the prosecution is duly served with the necessary notice.
