*Says “Refusal To Move Own Motions Amounts To Disobedience Of Court Orders”
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Apo, on Wednesday struck out six motions filed by Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, in his ongoing trial over alleged forgery and impersonation.
The trial judge, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, struck out the motions—M/7057/25, M/12210/25, M/14379/25, M/15452/25, M/16530/25, and M/16695/25—including an application seeking the judge’s recusal, after the first defendant refused to move the motions despite several adjournments.
Giwa and a co-defendant, Bukola, are standing trial on allegations of forging official documents and impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Awa Kalu, allegedly to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge filed against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama.
At the proceedings on Wednesday, Giwa told the court that he had filed multiple petitions to the Chief Judge of the FCT, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), and the National Judicial Council (NJC). He insisted that the petitions must be determined before any of his motions could be taken and consequently urged the court to adjourn the matter sine die.
At the resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel, T. Y. Silas, appeared for the Inspector-General of Police. The second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje, while Levi E. Nwonye appeared by watching brief for the nominal complainant.
Counsel to the first defendant, Ibrahim Idris, SAN, was absent, prompting Giwa to conduct his defence in person.
Silas informed the court that the matter had previously been adjourned to enable the first defendant retain counsel so that all pending motions could be taken. He stated that the prosecution was ready to proceed with its applications.
Giwa objected to the hearing of any motion, alleging that he could not obtain justice before the court due to what he described as the trial judge’s bias. Relying on Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), he urged the court to recuse itself, arguing that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
He further claimed that a letter addressed to the court on January 19, 2026, was rejected by the court registrar and maintained that, having written to the Chief Judge of the FCT on January 14, 2026, he would not submit to further proceedings.
In response, the prosecuting counsel opposed the objection on four grounds, relying on Sections 98(2) and 306(c) of the ACJA, 2015. Silas informed the court that the prosecution had already opened its case on October 30, 2025, with the testimony of its first witness, PW1, and argued that petitions to the Chief Judge do not automatically operate as a stay of criminal proceedings.
He described Giwa’s applications as a deliberate attempt to delay the trial and cited judicial authorities, including Okeke v. State and Tiput v. Dawamkat, urging the court to dismiss the applications and emphasising that litigation must come to an end.
Counsel to the second defendant aligned with Giwa’s submissions and urged the court to grant the application seeking recusal.
In his reply, Giwa challenged the prosecution’s reliance on Section 98(2) of the ACJA, contending that the calling of a single witness did not amount to properly opening the prosecution’s case. He urged the court to suspend proceedings pending investigations into his petitions by the Chief Judge and the NJC.
In a bench ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie agreed with the submissions of the prosecuting counsel, holding that petitions to the NJC or the Chief Judge do not, by themselves, stay criminal proceedings. The court observed that the conduct of the first defendant revealed a consistent pattern aimed at frustrating and delaying the trial.
The judge further held that Giwa’s refusal to move his own motions amounted to disobedience of court orders.
Consequently, the court struck out all six motions filed by the first defendant and adjourned the matter to January 26, 2026. The case was originally adjourned to January 28, 2026, but the date was brought forward after the first defendant informed the court that he would be appearing before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) on that day.
