‘This Court Will Never Give Me Justice’—Lawyer Cries Out

A dramatic scene played out on Thursday at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja when a legal practitioner, Maxwell Okpara, openly accused the court of bias and declared that he would never get justice in the matter in which he is standing trial.

The defendants are facing trial on a nine-count amended charge bordering on conspiracy, giving false information, and obtaining money by false pretence involving N52m, allegedly withdrawn after misleading the Court of Appeal into believing they represented CBN and Unity Bank during the proceedings.

The outburst occurred during the cross-examination of the second defendant, Barrister Gold Ogechi Nwankwo, who had opened her defence before Justice Hamza Mu’azu.

Nwankwo, a lawyer with Gold Legal Consults, told the court she was ready to testify and denied ever conspiring to mislead any public officer or giving false information as alleged.

“I understand the charge, and I never conspired, misled any public servant or gave false information in this case,” she said.

Narrating the circumstances that led to her appearance at the Court of Appeal on September 9, 2020, the defendant said she was contacted by a colleague, Barrister Bunmi Olaleye, external solicitor to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), to stand in for her in a garnishee proceeding involving a judgment creditor, Godwin Emmanuel, whom she described as a church member.

She said she was briefed on what to do and announced her appearance accordingly.

According to her, trouble started when Bunmi later called and asked her to say that she was instructed to appear by Barr. Maxwell Okpara, the first defendant.

“She told me to say it is Maxwell who instructed me to go and represent in the matter. I told her things are not done that way. She said she sensed trouble and that I would be included if I did not act as I was instructed,” Nwankwo testified.

She further told the court that she was invited by the legal director of the CBN, who advised her to take Bunmi’s instruction or face the consequences.

When it was time for cross-examination by the first defendant, Barr. Okpara, the lawyer, refused to ask any questions, alleging that the court had already foreclosed his rights.

“This court is not fair to me; it has foreclosed me, denied me the right of a fair hearing,” he said.

Justice Mu’azu repeatedly asked if he intended to put any questions to the witness, but Okpara insisted he would not proceed.

“Yes, my lord. I cannot get a fair trial in this court. I have petitioned the NJC on this matter already,” he said.

The judge warned that his refusal amounted to a waiver of his right to cross-examine, and subsequently ruled that “The right of the 1st defendant to cross-examine the 2nd defendant has been waived and has been foreclosed.”

Okpara protested, saying, “I did not waive my right. I will never get justice in this court. I prefer not to say anything in this matter.”

Under cross-examination by Dauda Abdulmalik Usman, counsel for the third defendant, and M.I. Buba for the prosecution, Nwankwo admitted she was neither an external solicitor nor a staff member of CBN and that the bank later petitioned against her appearance before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

She confirmed that the committee’s documents tendered in court, including her affidavit and written response, were made by her.

She also admitted that there was no written instruction from Bunmi Olaleye authorising her to stand for CBN and that her actions contributed to the striking out of a motion and the release of a judgment sum of N52m to the judgment creditor.

Following her cross-examination, the judge adjourned proceedings until January 19 and 20, 2026, for continuation of the defence.

Meanwhile, the first defendant, Dr Maxwell Opara, has petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), accusing Justice Hamza Mu’azu of gross misconduct, judicial bias and deliberate violation of his constitutional right to a fair hearing in the ongoing trial.

In the petition dated November 6, 2025, Opara referenced Charge No. CR/444/2021, a case involving himself and the two other defendants, alleging that the judge has demonstrated hostility, prejudice and personal animosity in the conduct of the proceedings.

He claimed the actions of the court amounted to improper conduct contrary to Rules 3.1 and 3.3 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, insisting that the proceedings reflect “a pattern of persecution rather than prosecution” with the intention to secure a conviction at all costs.

According to him, Justice Mu’azu repeatedly denied him the right to legal representation and compelled him to defend himself on a day his counsel communicated unavoidable absence and sought an adjournment, which the court refused at the request of the prosecution, despite the prosecution previously benefiting from several adjournments.

He also stated that the judge admitted a confessional statement, which he said was obtained under duress and without legal representation or video recording, contrary to Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and contrary to the Supreme Court decision in Charles v. State of Lagos (2023) LPELR-60632(SC).

Opara further alleged that the court foreclosed his defence despite a pending petition requesting the judge’s recusal and imposed what he described as arbitrary costs of N200,000 against counsel to the second defendant for adopting an affidavit in support of an application.

He also alleged that the judge deliberately fixed the hearing for November 14, 2025, despite his prior notice of a scheduled medical appointment, which he described as a trap intended to justify a bench warrant.

“The conduct of Justice Mu’azu has brought the image of the judiciary into disrepute. It has turned a legitimate prosecution into an instrument of persecution, personal vendetta and abuse of authority,” Opara stated.

He urged the NJC to investigate the judge, examine court records and certified proceedings, and take disciplinary action to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.