There was a mild drama at a Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday when a lawyer, Abubakar Mohammed, who was hired 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 alleged that she was illegally evicted from a property in the Maitama District of Abuja, where she lived, to serve only as a court observer.
A lawyer, 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 speak before the court; as he was only before the court to announce his appearance, and to watch the proceedings.
Mohammed was hired to watch the brief for Asabe in the court.
According to him, Mohammed was his staff member, hired by Asabe to appear in the case against him.
He said, “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 in this court is only to watch brief for the victim”.
But Justice Bature, in her response, agreed with Giwa and said that she did not record everything Mohammed said in court.
The case could not, however, proceed due to the absence of Erhunmuuse, who was said to be absent due to ill health and could not afford a lawyer.
The case was adjourned to the 24th of 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 secure legal representation.
Although counsel now represents the third defendant, 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 an 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, she warned that 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.
Emphasising the need for fairness, Justice Bature stated that “in the interest of justice, both parties must be allowed to be heard.”
She also ordered counsel to the third defendant to ensure his client’s appearance in court on the next adjourned date and that the prosecution is duly served with the necessary notice.
