Legal Nigeria

Alleged Forgery: Court throws out lawyer’s bid to remove trial judge

61e7zkK4mML. AC UF10001000 QL80 FMwebp

By Edith Nwapi

An Abuja High Court on Wednesday, struck out a motion filed by an Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, seeking the recusal of Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie from hearing.

Justice Onwuegbuzie also struck out Giwa’s motion on alleged disobedience of court orders, holding that the application was incompetent and constituted an attempt to frustrate the trial. The prosecution counsel, Theophilus Silas had prayed the court to strike out Giwa’s six motions.

Giwa and a co-defendant, Bukola, are standing trial on allegations of forging official documents and impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Awa Kalu, allegedly to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge filed against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama.

At the resumed proceedings on Wednesday, prosecution counsel, Silas, appeared for the prosecution and told the court that the business of the day was to move various motions by parties.

Hiya represented himself in absence of his counsel.

The second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje.

Silas informed the court that at the last adjourned date, the matter was stood down to enable the first defendant engage counsel so that all pending motions by both the prosecution and the defence could be taken.

He told the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed with the hearing of the pending applications.

However, Giwa objected to the hearing of any motion, arguing that he had written about three petitions to the Chief Judge of the FCT.

He alleged bias and stated that he could not get justice before the court because he has lost confidence.

He urged Justice Onwuegbuzie to recuse himself, citing Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution on the right to fair hearing and impartiality, as well as provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

He further claimed that the court registrar declined to accept a letter he purportedly wrote to the court on January 19, 2026.

In response, the prosecution counsel opposed Giwa’s application on four grounds, relying on Sections 98(2) and 306(c) of the ACJA, 2015.

Silas argued that the prosecution had already opened its case on October 30, 2025, when it called its first witness, PW1, Asebe Waziri.

He added that petitions to the Chief Judge did not automatically halt proceedings.

He described Giwa’s application as another attempt to delay the trial, citing decided authorities to urge the court to refuse the application and allow the matter to proceed.

“He was asked to move his pending motions which his refusal to do so construct to contempt of court order.

“The 1st defendant has developed a penchant to going against the rulings, warnings and orders of the court.

“Even if my lord is not minded to fine him in contempt, I hereby apply that all his motions including M/7057/25, M/12210/25, M/14379/25, M/15452/25,M/16530/25 and M/16695/25″ Silas urged court.

Counsel to the second defendant aligned with Giwa’s submission and urged the court to grant the recusal application.

Giwa, in a further response, faulted the prosecution’s reliance on Section 98(2) of the ACJA, arguing that calling only one witness did not amount to properly opening the prosecution’s case.

He urged the court to suspend proceedings pending the outcome of investigations into his petitions by the Chief Judge and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

In a short ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that petitions to the NJC or the Chief Judge do not, by themselves, operate to stay criminal proceedings.

The judge observed that the first defendant’s conduct was consistent with a pattern aimed at obstructing the trial.

He noted that Giwa’s refusal to move his own motion amounted to disobedience of court orders.

The judge also clarified that the case was initially adjourned to Jan. 28, but the date was brought forward after Giwa informed the court that he would be appearing before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) on that day.

He then, struck out the first defendant’s motions and adjourned until Jan.26, for prosecution to move its motions. -(NAN)

Source; PM News