An FCT High Court sitting in Apo Abuja, on Monday granted a further adjournment in the ongoing trial of Abuja-based lawyer Victor Giwa and his co-defendant, Ibitade Bukola, over alleged forgery and impersonation, despite strong opposition from the prosecution.
The latest adjournment marks the seventh occasion on which the first defendant, Giwa, has sought to delay proceedings since the trial commenced, and the fourth time he has changed his legal representation.
Giwa and Bukola are standing trial for allegedly forging official documents and impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Awa Kalu, with the purported aim of misleading the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge against Giwa.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel 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 of the law firm of Ahmed Raji, SAN.
Addressing the court, Silas informed the judge that the matter was fixed for the hearing of the prosecution’s motion and urged the court to allow him to proceed.
However, Akabi told the court that his firm had been briefed only the previous day, explaining that Ahmed Raji, SAN, had intended to personally handle the case but was unavailable due to another engagement.
He therefore applied for an adjournment to allow proper preparation of the defence.
The application was vehemently opposed by the prosecution.
“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.”
Silas further argued that the first defendant was fully aware of the hearing date and had previously informed the court that he was fit and ready to conduct his defence.
He added that all necessary processes had been exchanged, with the last filing completed on December 1, 2025.
Relying on Section 396(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2018, and Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Silas contended that the defendant had exhausted the statutory limits for adjournments.
“The first defendant has become an obstacle to a fair trial within a reasonable time,” he said.
He also cited Supreme Court decisions in Etsako West LGA v. Christopher and Tiput v. Dawankat, arguing that litigation must not be allowed to continue endlessly.
Responding, counsel for the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, urged the court to be guided by its records but appealed for restraint.
He disclosed that he had personally contacted Ahmed Raji, SAN, who confirmed that he had been briefed just a day earlier and intended to take over the case.
Aboje also informed the court of a pending application by the first defendant seeking to relist an earlier motion that had been struck out, urging the court to hear it in the interest of justice. He added that the second defendant did not oppose a short adjournment.
In his ruling, the trial judge expressed concern over what he described as a consistent pattern of delay by the first defendant.
“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 noted that Giwa had, at various times, represented himself and had appeared with three different Senior Advocates of Nigeria and over 30 different counsel since the trial began.
The judge also 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).
According to the court, the NJC had since responded, informing Giwa that his petition could not stop the trial and that case assignment remained at the discretion of the Chief Judge.
Although acknowledging the repeated delays, the court held that “in the interest of justice,” the matter would be adjourned.
The case was consequently adjourned to February 4 for the continuation of the hearing.
