Court Adjourns IGP’s Trial Of Giwa, Co-Defendant Over Kalu’s Absence

The FCT High Court in Abuja has adjourned the criminal trial of lawyer Victor Giwa and a co-defendant, instituted by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), to November 18 and 19, 2026, following the failure of a subpoenaed witness, Chief Awa U. Kalu (SAN), to appear.

The proceedings were stalled on Monday after counsel to Kalu, Dr Sunny Ajala (SAN), informed the court that his client had filed an application seeking to set aside or vary the subpoena requiring him to testify.

The case, marked Charge No. CR/150/2025, was called at 10:25 a.m. for continuation of trial.

Prosecution counsel, S.A. Medugu, alongside E.T. Emmanuel, told the court that he had received a letter from Ajala requesting that the matter be stood down or adjourned on behalf of the subpoenaed witness.

Medugu explained that the letter referred to an application filed by Kalu and served on the prosecution on November 6, although he had not yet examined its contents.

He maintained, however, that Kalu had been duly served with the subpoena on October 7 and 12, 2026, noting that proof of service and acknowledged copies bearing the stamp of the witness’s chambers had been submitted to the court.

Relying on Section 397 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the prosecutor argued that anyone served with a subpoena was legally obligated to appear in court until formally discharged.

He added that the prosecution could have applied for a warrant of arrest under Sections 243, 244 and 246 of the ACJA but had decided against taking that step out of respect for the senior lawyer.

Medugu consequently urged the court to direct Kalu to appear on the next adjourned date.

In his response, Ajala said he received instructions from Kalu early Monday morning and encountered difficulties due to conflicting court engagements.

He argued that although his client was not a party to the substantive criminal case, he was entitled to constitutional safeguards and fair hearing as provided under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

Ajala further disclosed that Kalu had filed a motion on notice asking the court to set aside or vary the subpoena to minimise the hardship its enforcement could cause him.

He sought permission to move the application, but the prosecution requested an adjournment to study the motion and prepare its response. Ajala did not object to the request.

The proceedings later became heated when Giwa, who represented himself, raised concerns over what he described as his exclusion from proceedings relating to the subpoenaed witness.

He questioned why an application concerning a witness expected to testify in the case was being considered without him being served or given an opportunity to state his position.

However, Ajala challenged Giwa’s account, maintaining that his description of the earlier proceedings was inaccurate.

He recalled that when the prosecution raised the witness’s request for a stand-down or adjournment on October 30, the court had asked whether any other party wished to respond.

According to Ajala, he had specifically sought clarification on the position of defence counsel, after which Giwa informed the court that his lawyer was absent and that he was appearing in person.

Ajala subsequently urged Giwa to withdraw his comments, rephrase his complaint or apologise to the court.

The disagreement intensified when Medugu accused Giwa of repeatedly making allegations against the court.

The judge subsequently asked Giwa whether he was willing to apologise to the court and the Bar over the observations made by the senior lawyer.

Giwa replied, “Yes, my Lord, I apologise to the Court and to the Bar.”

In his ruling, the judge adjourned the case to November 18 and 19, 2026, for continuation of proceedings and consideration of the pending issues.

The court also cancelled the earlier trial dates of November 11 and 16.

The adjournment followed Kalu’s absence and the prosecution’s request for more time to respond to his application challenging the subpoena.