Court Orders Arrest Of Lawyer, Police Officer For Evading Arraignment

The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Friday ordered the arrest of a lawyer, Victor Giwa, and a police officer, Edith Erhunmuuse, for failing to appear in court for their arraignment.

The presiding judge, Justice Samira Bature, issued the bench warrant following an application by the prosecution counsel, Aderonke Imana.

Giwa and Erhunmuuse are standing trial alongside Cecil Osakwe in a case marked FCT/HC/CR/222/2023. The three defendants are facing a nine-count charge bordering on alleged criminal activities, including the forceful eviction of occupants and destruction of property estimated at N300 million.

In her ruling, Justice Bature said she had carefully reviewed the case file and found merit in the prosecution’s request.

She described the letters and medical documents submitted by the second defendant as tactics aimed at delaying proceedings.

“As a legal practitioner, he ought to know better. Indeed, this matter was filed in 2023. It commenced before this court on July 16, 2024.

“Unfortunately, up till today, being the 24th day of April, 2026, approaching two years now, arraignment has not been possible for one reason or the other,” she said.

The judge further observed that if the second defendant was genuinely ill, he should have notified the prosecution earlier rather than submitting a letter on the day of the hearing.

She also faulted the conduct of the third defendant, noting her repeated absence from proceedings.

“The third defendant, on the last adjourned date, had insinuated that the prosecution is delaying this trial, but the circumstances clearly show that it is the other way around.

“The third defendant, who appeared only once in this case, has chosen to completely stay away from these proceedings, as she has consistently been absent.

“The court registrar was instructed to write to the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria to secure representation of counsel on her behalf.

“The court has been reliably informed that the third defendant declined the offer by the Legal Aid Council to represent her in this case, as the council had already been assigned the case to defend her, but she refused,” the judge held.

Justice Bature stressed that court proceedings must be treated with seriousness, noting that the defendants’ repeated failure to appear amounted to disrespect for the court.

She also addressed the argument raised by the defence regarding pending applications.

“On Mr Aboje’s submissions that there are pending applications, particularly the one dated February 2, 2026;

“Let me state that the position of the law, as rightly pointed out by the prosecution counsel, is that the jurisdiction of the court in criminal matters is activated after a valid arraignment,” she said.

According to her, all applications can only be entertained after arraignment has taken place.

“Therefore, this court shall proceed with arraignment irrespective of any pending applications.

“In the meantime, the prosecution’s application is granted. A bench warrant is ordered for the arrest of the second and third defendants,” the judge ruled.

The case was subsequently adjourned to April 29 for arraignment.

Earlier, the prosecution counsel told the court that the matter, filed in January 2023, had suffered repeated delays due to what she described as a “systematic pattern” of absence by the defendants.

“There has been a systematic pattern of either the first defendant being absent in court or the second defendant being absent,” she said.

She relied on Sections 113 and 114 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, arguing that the prosecution could no longer continue to seek adjournments.

“Our application is imperative. It is not the intention of the prosecution to keep coming to court for adjournments.

“Since the second defendant did not notify our office of his intention not to be in court, a bench warrant should be issued. The second defendant has not shown any seriousness before this court,” she added.

However, counsel to the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, opposed the application, urging the court to dismiss it.

He argued that his client was absent due to illness and had submitted a medical report, adding that there was a pending application before the court.

“The application is dated February 2, 2026. We rely on Section 135 of the ACJA 2015.

“We urge this court to dispense with the appearance of the second defendant in view of that application. He is not available today due to his illness. On the last sitting, he was in court,” he said.

In response, the prosecution maintained that arraignment is fundamental to any criminal trial.

“Arraignment is the beginning of all criminal matters. Any proceeding outside arraignment is a nullity,” she said.

Meanwhile, the first defendant, Cecil Osakwe, was present in court and represented by his counsel, Farouk Akambi.