A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Apo on Monday, granted yet another adjournment in the ongoing trial of an Abuja lawyers victor Giwa and ibitade Bukola, who are facing charges of alleged forgery and impersonation, despite stiff opposition from the prosecution over what it described as deliberate delay tactics.
The adjournment marks the seventh time the first defendant, Giwa, has sought to stall proceedings and the fourth time he has changed legal representation since the commencement of the trial.
Giwa and Bukola are being prosecuted on allegations of forging official documents and impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Awa Kalu, with the alleged intent to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge against Giwa.
At the resumed hearing, T. Y. Silas appeared for the Inspector-General of Police, while Ogbu Aboje represented the second defendant. Levi E. Nwoye held a watching brief for the complainant.
The first defendant was represented by Farook Akabi, from the law firm of Ahmed Raji, SAN.
Prosecuting counsel, Theophilus Silas, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the prosecution’s motion and urged the court to allow him to move the same.
However, Akabi told the court that the law firm of Ahmed Raji, SAN, was only briefed the previous day, adding that the learned silk intended to personally handle the case but had another engagement.
He therefore applied for an adjournment, citing short notice and the need to properly plan the defence.
Silas vehemently opposed the application, arguing that the request was a calculated attempt to frustrate the trial.
“This is the seventh date the first defendant is seeking adjournment to prevent this motion from being heard,” Silas told the court.
“It is also the fourth time he is changing counsel strictly to delay this trial.”
He further noted that the first defendant was fully aware of the hearing date and at the last hearing the 1st defendant was fit and proper to defend himself .
According to the prosecution, all processes had long been exchanged, with the last filing done on December 1, 2025, making the motion ripe for hearing.
Silas relied on Section 396(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2018, and Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), arguing that the defendant had exhausted the statutory limits for adjournment and had become “an obstacle to fair trial within reasonable time.”
He also cited two Supreme Court decisions, Etsako West LGA v. Christopher and Tiput v. Dawankat and others submit that litigation must not be allowed to continue endlessly.
Responding, counsel to the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, urged the court to be guided by its own records but appealed for restraint.
He disclosed that he personally contacted Ahmed Raji, SAN, who confirmed that he was indeed briefed just a day earlier and intended to handle the matter himself.
Aboje also informed the court of a pending motion by the first defendant seeking to relist an earlier motion that had been struck out, urging the court to hear and determine it in the interest of justice. He said the second defendant did not oppose a short adjournment.
In his ruling, the trial judge expressed strong concern over the conduct of the first defendant, noting that Giwa had at various times represented himself and appeared with three different Senior Advocates of Nigeria and over 30 different counsel.
“Each time the first defendant appears, he adopts a storyline to prevent the matter from proceeding,” the judge said, adding that the court works with evidence, not theatrics.
The court recalled earlier warnings against delay tactics and referenced a previous claim by the first defendant that he had petitioned the Chief Judge and the National Judicial Council (NJC).
The judge noted that the NJC had since replied the Defendant that his petition cannot stop his ongoing trial and case assignment was at the discretion of the Chief Judge.
Although acknowledging the pattern of delays, the court held that “in the interest of justice,” the matter would be adjourned.
The case was accordingly adjourned to February 4, for continuation of hearing.
