Court Dismisses Case Of Suspended Adamawa REC Seeking To Halt Trial

An Adamawa State High Court sitting in Yola has dismissed an application filed by the suspended resident electoral commissioner (REC) of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Barr Hudu Yunusa Ari, seeking to halt his trial.

The application which was filed by Hudu, prayed the Justice Benjamin Lawan Manji-led high court to stay proceedings in the substantive case instituted by Adamawa State government.

Hudu through his counsel, Mohammed Tijjani, sought for an order of the court adjourning the case sine die pending the determination of appeal which was heard on the 21st January, 2025 and reserved for judgement by Yola Court of Appeal.

Tijjani argued that the decision whether or not to adjourn a case is at the discretion of the court, which discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously considering the circumstances of the case.

He submitted that in the instant case, the applicant has appealed against the decision of the court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and likelihood of bias in adjudicating over the case against him.

According to him, by Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the court of appeal rules, 2021, once an appeal is entered in the court of appeal, the appellate court becomes seized of all the proceedings as between the parties and that the court cannot share jurisdiction with the appellate court over the same case.

He further submitted that a judicial and judicious exercise of the discretion of the court demands that the proceedings before the court be adjourned so as to enable the higher court exercise full jurisdiction over the case.

On his part, counsel to the state, Chief Lenard Nzadon, registered his opposition to the application by reliance on points of law alone made orally with leave of court.

Chief Nzadon submitted that by the provision of section 307 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Adamawa State, 2018 (ACJL) the court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s application.

He concluded that all the cases cited by the applicant are civil cases and that not even one of the cases relied on by the applicant in urging the court to adjourn the matter sine die is a criminal case.

He told the court that based on the authorities cited by counsel to Hudu, the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the application and urged that the application be dismissed.

Ruling on the application, Justice Bejamin Lawan Manji, said that the grant or refusal of the application for stay of proceedings is a matter of discretion for the court to exercise judicially and judiciously.

Justice Benjamin held that it is incumbent upon the appellant/applicant to establish “beyond doubt” that the action ought not to go on.

He stated that counsel to the state is correct in his submission that the cases relied upon by Hudu to urge the court to stay proceedings are all civil cases and so only represent the general position of the law with regards to stay of proceedings in civil cases.

According to him, the matter before him is a criminal case and the rules of criminal procedure are not necessarily the same as those that apply in civil cases.

He stated that in view of the clear provision of section 307 of the ACJL, it is clear that there is no discretion available for the court to exercise.

Justice Benjamin Lawan Manji declared that the section clearly prohibits the court from entertaining an application that seeks to halt proceedings under any guise in a criminal matter and accordingly dismissed it.