Alleged N300m malicious damage charge: AGF to review case against lawyer, others
The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (OAGF) has told a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama about its plan to review the criminal
The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (OAGF) has told a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama about its plan to review the criminal case pending against an Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa and two others.
Listed with Giwa as defendants in the charge marked: FCT/HC/CR/222/2023 are Cecil Osakwe, and Edith Erhunmuuse.
They are accused, among others, of engaging in unlawful eviction and malicious damage to property estimated at ₦300 million.
The court has scheduled arraignment for Tuesday, but had to postpone it owing to information from the prosecuting lawyer, Aderonke Imana about the planned review of the case.
At the commencement of proceedings on Tuesday, Imana noted that, ordinarily, the case was fixed for arraignment, but with the absence of the third defendant (Erhunmuuse) it would be difficult to proceed.
She however, added that the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF) instructed her to request for a short adjournment because there is the need for further review of the case.
READ ALSO; Nigeria showcases reforms at WCO
Imana then asked for a new date for arraignment, following which the Justice Samirah Bature noted that third defendant's lawyer , Chidiebere Onyekwere, had written a letter explaining her client’s absence.
Justice Bature who expressed discomfort that the defendant had been absent on three consecutive adjournments, asked Onyekwere what the case was with his client.
Although Imana complained that the medical report, accompanying Onyekwere's letter was illegible, the third defendant's lawyer explained that the document was sent to him late the previous day and that he was unable to print a legible copy.
Onyekwere also told the court that his client had been unwell since last year when she put to bed.
At a point, Onyekwere applied to withdraw his further representation for the third defendant on the grounds that she failed to perfect his brief.
Giwa, who represented himself, hailed the prosecution and the DPPF for the decision to further review the case.
He admitted that the need for a further review of the case was informed by his complaint to the office of the AGF.
Justice Bature has however, adjourned till April 24 for arraignment.
A count in the charge, accused the defendants of conspiring among themselves sometime in 2022 to unlawfully break into the residence of Ms. Asabe Waziri at Mekong Street, Maitama, Abuja, with the assistance of police officers now at large.
They were alleged to have carted away her belongings, including her international passport and cash, without her consent.
According to the prosecution, the alleged offences are contrary to Sections 96, 97, 326 and 327 of the Penal Code Law.
Speaking while exiting the court, A. K. Musa, who held a watching brief for the nominal complainant (Ms. Waziri), expressed displeasure about what he described as a sustained and deliberate pattern of delay.
Musa argued that it poses a grave threat to the administration of criminal justice.
He noted that the charge, filed since 2023 by the OAGF was first fixed for arraignment on July 3, 2024, but has failed to proceed as the defendants allegedly evaded arraignment on multiple occasions.
Musa contended that the continued delay in the case offends the spirit and letter of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), particularly the provisions mandating expeditious trials.
He alleged that while proceedings remain stalled, the victim continues to suffer ongoing violations of her rights, noting that her educational certificates, professional credentials and other personal belongings allegedly remain in the defendants’ custody.
Musa expressed confidence in the Attorney-General’s commitment to the rule of law, but said he was concerned that the ongoing review appeared to follow a series of petitions and correspondences by the defendants which, he said may not present the full facts of the case.
Musa argued that justice should not only be for the defendants, but also for the victims and the state, warning that the petitions to the AGF should not substitute for appearance before a court of competent jurisdiction.
