Alleged forgery: Court strikes out Abuja lawyer’s six motions seeking judge’s recusal

Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Apo, Abuja, on Wednesday, struck out six different motions filed by an Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, seeking the judge to recuse himself from his (Giwa’s) trial and lack of jurisdiction.

Also struck out at yesterday’s proceedings in the case was Giwa’s motion on alleged disobedience of court orders.

The court held that the application was incompetent and constituted an attempt to frustrate the trial.

ALSO READ: Why more Nigerian women are developing cervical cancer at younger ages —Dr Oluwasola

Giwa and another lawyer, Ibitade Bukola, are being prosecuted by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) before the court for alleged forgery and impersonation.

They were alleged to have forged official documents and impersonated a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Awa Kalu, with the intent to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing a criminal charge earlier filed against Giwa at before Justice Samira Bature of the FCT High Court, sitting at Maitama, Abuja.

At the resumed gearing in the case yesterday, prosecution counsel, Theophilus Silas, told the court that the business of the day was to move various motions by parties.

He told the court that at the last the last sitting, the case was adjourned to yesterday, January 21 to enable the Giwa engage a counsel of his choice in order that all pending motions by both the prosecution and the defence be heard.

He told the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed with the hearing of the pending applications.

However, Giwa who represented himself, objected to hearing of any motion, arguing that he had written about three petitions to the Chief Judge of the FCT.

He alleged bias by the judge, which he said made him lose confidence in the court and asserted that he could not get justice before the court.

He urged the judge to recuse himself, citing Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on the right to fair hearing and impartiality as well as provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

He further claimed that the court registrar declined to accept a letter he wrote to the court on January 19, 2026.

Counsel for the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, on his part, aligned with Giwa’s submission and urged the court to grant the recusal application.

Responding to this, the prosecutor opposed Giwa’s application on four grounds and based his opposition on the provisions of Sections 98(2) and 306(c) of the ACJA, 2015.

According to him, the prosecution had already opened its case on October 30, 2025, when it called its first witness (PW1), Asebe Waziri.

Silas argued that writing petitions to the Chief Judge did not automatically halt proceedings.

While describing the first defendant’s application as an attempt to delay the trial, the prosecuting counsel urge the court to refuse the application and allow the matter to proceed, citing various authorities to support his position.

According to the prosecutor, “The first defendant has developed a penchant to going against the rulings, warnings and orders of the court.

“Even if my lord is not minded to fine him in contempt, I hereby apply that all his motions, including M/7057/25, M/12210/25, M/14379/25, M/15452/25, M/16530/25 and M/16695/25, be struck out.”

While responding to Silas’ submission, Giwa faulted the prosecution’s reliance on Section 98(2) of the ACJA, arguing that calling only one witness did not amount to properly opening the prosecution’s case.

He urged the court to suspend proceedings pending the outcome of investigations into his petitions by the Chief Judge and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

In a his bench ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that petitions to the NJC or the Chief Judge do not, by themselves, operate to stay criminal proceedings.

He held that the first defendant’s conduct was consistent with a pattern aimed at obstructing the trial, adding that Giwa’s refusal to move his own motion amounted to disobedience of court orders.

The judge also clarified that the case was initially adjourned to January 28, but the date was brought forward after Giwa informed the court that he would be appearing before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) on that day.

He subsequently struck out the first defendant’s motions and adjourned to January 26 for prosecution to move its motions.