Alleged Impersonation: Trial Of Lawyer, 1 Other Stalled As Defence Seeks Adjournment

The trial of Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, and his co-defendant, Ibitade Bukola, over allegations of forgery and impersonation of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Awa Kalu (SAN), was stalled on Wednesday at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Apo.

The defendants were standing trial before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie for allegedly forging official documents and impersonating Kalu to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing a criminal case earlier filed against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsels, F. G. Gabriel and T. Y. Silas, appeared for the Inspector-General of Police. Counsel representing Giwa was absent but sent a letter seeking adjournment through counsels to the second defendant. Ogbu Aboje and C. S. Ugwu appeared for Bukola, while Levi E. Nwoye held a watching brief for the complainant.

Counsel to the second defendant informed the court that the adjournment letter originated from Ibrahim Idris (SAN), who claimed to be representing Giwa.

However, prosecution counsel F. G. Gabriel objected, insisting that Idris had never appeared in the matter and, therefore, lacked the capacity to seek an adjournment.

According to Gabriel: “The learned silk has no interest in this matter. He has never appeared before this Honourable Court for the first defendant. If he had ever announced appearance, we could consider his letter. This is yet another tactic by the first defendant to ensure today’s proceedings do not go on.”

Gabriel stressed that the first defendant was “strong enough to move his motion” and that the day’s business should proceed.

In his observation, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that Idris (SAN) had never appeared in the matter and that the letter appeared to support the prosecution’s claim of a deliberate attempt to delay the trial.

The judge remarked that Giwa, being a lawyer, ought to be eager to defend himself rather than engaging in what he described as “drama and theatrics.”

He recalled that Giwa had previously appeared in court with 13 lawyers, later announced he would represent himself, and was now attempting to introduce another counsel without proper notice.

Gabriel also argued that no motion for change of counsel had been filed. He cited Order 11 Rule 2 of the FCT High Court Civil Procedure Rules, which requires both old and new counsel to notify the court when representation changes. The judge, however, held that civil procedure rules were not necessary in the criminal context of the case.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to January 12, 2026, for the hearing of all pending motions.

At the previous sitting, the prosecution had accused Giwa of deliberately employing delay tactics after he failed to appear in court at the scheduled time.

While prosecution counsels Gabriel, Asaph, and Silas were present, Giwa was absent when the matter was called. Aboje, appearing for the second defendant, informed the court that Giwa had gone to the hospital and would arrive late.

Gabriel objected, noting that Aboje was not counsel to the first defendant and was, therefore, not authorised to convey such information. He further argued that the notice of Giwa’s absence sent only three hours before proceedings—was “improper and suspicious,” describing it as a calculated attempt to “frustrate and forestall” the day’s business.

Justice Onwuegbuzie faulted Giwa for not notifying the court directly before briefly standing the matter down. Upon resumption, Giwa arrived and told the court he had assigned the case to another lawyer due to health issues. Gabriel immediately pointed out inconsistencies between Giwa’s claim and Aboje’s earlier explanation.

Giwa also stated that he had only been served with amended charges on December 2 and needed time to study them. The prosecution did not oppose a short adjournment in the interest of justice.

This development had led to the matter being adjourned to Wednesday, December 10, for continuation of the hearing and determination of all pending motions, proceedings that have now again been stalled by the defence’s adjournment request.