A mild drama played out ar the High of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), when a lawyer watching brief for the nominal complainant in a property dispute case openly accused the trial Judge, Justice Samira Bature of delaying proceedings in the matter.
The lawyer, Abubakar Mohammed was only engaged by Asabe Waziri to watch proceedings bordering on her alleged eviction from a property in Maitama district of Abuja, where she lived.
The Attorney General of the Federation is prosecuting a legal practitioner, Victor Giwa, Cecil Osakwe and Ms Edith Erhunmuuse, for illegally ejecting Asabe from the property.
However, when the matter was called yesterday, Abubakar Mohammed, who was in cort only to watch the proceedings, accused the judge of delaying the case.
He was interjected by Giwa who told the court that as counsel watching brief for the nominal complainant, Mohammed has no right to address the court.
Giwa further informed the court that Mohammed was his staff, who was 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”.
Responding, Justice Bature agreed with Giwa while adding that she did not record everything Mohammed said in the court.
Menwhile, the case could not proceed following the absence of Erhunmuuse, on account of ill-health.
Justice Bature consequently adjourned further proceedings to April 24, 2024.
At the last adjourned date, the court was told that the case has earlier suffered delays at the instance of the 3rd defendant (Erhumuuse) who was given time to secure a lawyer.
Although she was now represented by counsel, Mr C. C. Onyechere, she was absent from court on account of 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 series of adjournments warning 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.
While stressing the need for fairness, Justice Bature stated that “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 his client’s appearance in court on the next adjourned date and that the prosecution is duly served with the necessary notice.
