The Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Friday ordered the arrest of a lawyer, Victor Giwa, and a police officer, Edith Erhunmuuse, for evading arraignment.
The trial judge, Justice Samira Bature, issued the arrest order after the prosecution counsel, Aderonke Imana, prayed the court.
The defendants in the charge marked FCT/HC/CR/222/2023 are Cecil Osakwe, Victor Giwa, and Edith Erhunmuuse, and they are facing a nine-count charge.
The charges against the defendants include allegations of criminal conduct involving the forceful eviction of occupants and damage to property estimated at N300 million.
Justice Bature, while granting the order in a ruling, held that she had gone through the records of the court and could not but agree with the prosecution counsel.
She noted that all the letters and medical records served on the court by the second defendant were mere delay tactics.
“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 added that the prosecution had made the point that if the second defendant was indeed ill, he could have alerted their office earlier.
She said instead, as a delay tactic, he chose to send a letter on the day of proceedings to stall the case once again.
“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 stated that courts were not for play but for serious business.
She said since the second and third defendants had chosen to show disrespect to the court by refusing to appear for their arraignment repeatedly, the court had no option but to act.
“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.
She added that all applications could only be taken after arraignment.
“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.
Justice Bature thereafter adjourned the matter until April 29 for arraignment.
Earlier, the prosecution counsel, Aderonke Imana, told the court that the charge was filed in January 2023, but arraignment had been stalled by 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, adding that the prosecution could not 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.
Counsel for the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, opposed the application, urging the court to discountenance it.
He said the second defendant had presented a medical report and was absent due to illness, adding that they had a pending application.
“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.
Responding, the prosecution maintained that arraignment was fundamental to criminal proceedings.
“Arraignment is the beginning of all criminal matters. Any proceeding outside arraignment is a nullity,” she said.
The first defendant, Cecil Osakwe, was present in court and was represented by Farouk Akambi.
