Alleged Forgery: Judge Warns Lawyer Against Seeking Private Meeting Outside Open Court

Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Apo, on Monday, cautioned Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, who is standing trial over alleged forgery and impersonation, against seeking any private audience with him outside open court.

The warning came as the trial of Giwa and his co-defendant, Ibitade Bukola, stalled on January 12, 2026, following the absence of defence counsel and a controversy over an alleged attempt by the first defendant to meet the judge in chambers before the hearing.

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

At the resumed proceedings, prosecuting counsel, T. Y. Silas, appeared for the Inspector-General of Police. Counsel to the first defendant was absent, with Giwa informing the court that his lead counsel, Ibrahim Idris (SAN), was recuperating from prostate surgery. The second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje, while Levi E. Nwoye held a watching brief for the complainant.

Tension arose when the court drew attention to Giwa’s alleged attempt to arrange a private meeting with the judge in chambers before the case was called. Giwa told the court that he had suggested a meeting involving the prosecuting counsel and counsel to the second defendant, in the presence of the court registrar, describing it as a matter of professional courtesy and ethical practice.

Justice Onwuegbuzie, however, questioned the propriety of such move, asking whether it was acceptable for a defendant to seek a private audience with a judge while his case was pending. Giwa admitted that such practice was improper.

In his response, prosecuting counsel Silas confirmed that Giwa had approached him regarding the proposed meeting but said he declined after the defendant failed to disclose the purpose. Silas described the attempt as unethical, stressing that it was inappropriate for a defendant to seek a private meeting with a trial judge ahead of proceedings.

Describing the incident as “shocking”, Justice Onwuegbuzie warned that the court would not tolerate any attempt by a defendant to approach a judge in chambers over a matter already before the court.

On the issue of adjournment, the prosecution argued that the hearing date was fixed at the instance of the first defendant, citing a letter dated December 10, 2025, in which Giwa’s counsel requested hearing dates in January. Silas also relied on Section 396(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, noting that parties are limited in the number of adjournments after arraignment, and listed several adjournments allegedly occasioned by the first defendant.

The prosecution urged the court to award costs against Giwa for wasting judicial time under Section 396(6) of the ACJA, arguing that the absence of defence counsel was unjustified, especially as a Senior Advocate was expected to have junior counsel available in his chamber.

In his response, Giwa invoked Section 36(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), insisting on his right to counsel of his choice and rejecting the suggestion that another lawyer could represent him. He described the request for costs as “mischievous” and maintained that he had not personally benefited from the adjournments.

Counsel to the second defendant aligned with Giwa’s submissions and urged the court to grant an adjournment.

Delivering an oral ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie expressed displeasure at the conduct of the defence, noting that the lead counsel to the first defendant ought to have junior counsel to delegate to represent him in his absentia. He described the explanations offered as unsatisfactory but said the court would “bend backwards” in the interest of justice.

Although the court found no compelling reason for an adjournment, it nevertheless granted one “to fulfil all righteousness,” noting that the first defendant had previously appeared with a Senior Advocate and several lawyers but was unrepresented on the day.

The matter was accordingly adjourned to January 21, 2026, for continuation of hearing.