Abuja Lawyers’ Misrepresentation Case Adjourned To March 11

Justice Hamza Mu’azu of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja, has adjourned the ongoing trial of Abuja-based lawyers, Maxwell Okpara, Gold Ogechi Nwankwo and Jubilate Obasikene to March 11 for continuation of the hearing.

The defendants are standing trial on a nine-count amended charge bordering on conspiracy, misrepresentation and allegedly giving false information to the court in a N52m garnishee matter.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, the judge informed the court that he had yet to receive feedback from the National Judicial Council (NJC) regarding a petition written against him by the first and second defendants, but would continue with the case pending the council’s decision.

During the session, counsel from the Legal Aid Council, Shetima Akilahyal, representing the second defendant, called his first witness, Gerald Katchi Okoro, National Coordinator of the Initiative Against Human Rights Abuse and Torture.

Led in evidence, Okoro told the court that Nwankwo is a member of his organisation. He said the group became aware of her legal challenges in 2022 following a complaint from one Godwin Emmanuel and subsequently made inquiries into the matter.

According to him, the second defendant denied misleading the court or providing false information when contacted by the organisation.

He added that the group applied to the Court of Appeal for documents relating to the case after being asked to do so. Okoro identified the letter when it was shown to him in court, while the prosecution moved to tender the document as evidence.

When the first defendant, Okpara was called to speak on the issue of admisibility, he said he lacks confidence in the trial judge handling the matter.

“My lord, you have forclosed my right of defence, I have lost confidence in this court, I will not get justice in this matter,” he said.

However, the prosecution, led by Maryam Hayatudeen, objected to the tendering of the document on the grounds that there was no proof it was received by the Court of Appeal.

Responding, Akilahyal argued that relevance is the primary basis for admissibility, noting that the charge specifically referenced proceedings at the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja.

He maintained that the defence had complied with the appellate court’s directive to put its request in writing and had received a reply.

Justice Mu’azu waived the objection by the prosecution and admitted the document as evidence in the matter.

Akilahyal then showed the defendant, the response from the court of appeal to the letter written by the organisation and sought to tender it.

Again, Okpara did not make comments on the admisibility of the document, while the prosecution did not raise any objections.

However, the third defence counsel, Samuel Nwankwo objected to the admisibility of the document stating that only the Court of Appeal could certify it since its supposedly a public document, from their office.

Following the objection, the defence withdrew the document, and indicated plans to subpoena the Deputy Chief Registrar to that effect.

When the court called for cross-examination, the first defendant, Okpara, maintained that he lacked confidence in the court and declined to proceed. Justice Mu’azu consequently held that he had waived his right to cross-examine the witness.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the third defendant, the witness confirmed he was representing his organisation and had its approval to testify, though not in writing.

He said he joined the organisation between 2013 and 2014 but could not state exactly when the second defendant became a member, adding that members are admitted based on integrity.

Okoro further told the court that he was not present at the Court of Appeal in September 2022 when Nwankwo allegedly announced her appearance for the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and that she did not present any document from the bank authorising such representation. He, however, stated that the organisation issued her an identity card.

The prosecution also confirmed through the witness that he had no direct knowledge of the events at the appellate court on the day the appearance was made.

Following cross-examination, Akilahyal informed the court that the defence intends to call two additional witnesses; the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal and Godwin Emmanuel, requested subpoenas to make it possible.

The judge directed counsel to file a formal application.

Defence counsel further disclosed that there is a pending application seeking a virtual hearing for Emmanuel, who according to him is unwell and based in Adamawa State.

Justice Mu’azu advised that the application for virtual hearing could address the issue without necessarily requiring a subpoena.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to March 11 at 12 p.m. for continuation of trial.

The case was previously adjourned on January 19 after Justice Mu’azu disclosed that a petition had been filed against him at the NJC by the first and second defendants.

Although he initially indicated it would be appropriate to await the council’s decision, the court fixed the matter for continuation of trial.

The petition followed allegations by Okpara that the judge demonstrated bias, personal interest and hostility toward him. He had also requested that the the judge to recuse himself from the matter and forward the case file to the Chief Judge of the FCT for re-assignment.

Okpara openly accused the court of unfairness and insisted he would not receive justice in the matter. The judge subsequently ruled that his refusal to cross-examine a witness amounted to a waiver of that right.

The defendants have, however, denied the allegations against them, with Nwankwo previously telling the court that she did not conspire to mislead any public officer or provide false information.