Alleged illegal eviction: Court fixes March 3 to arraign property developer, others

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday fixed March 3 for the arraignment of a property developer, Cecil Osakwe and two others for an alleged illegal eviction.

Osakwe is dragged before Justice Samira Umar Bature alongside Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa and Ms Edith Erhunmuuse by the Inspector-General of Police in the charge, marked FCT/HS/CR/222/2023, on charges bordering on criminal conduct, including the forceful eviction of occupants and the destruction of property estimated at N300 million.

The defendants’ arraignment, earlier scheduled for today, could not hold due to the absence of the judge said to be due to her ill-health, resulting in the court fixing March 3 for the arraignment.

ALSO READ: Alleged $13m fraud: Court fixes March 25 to decide EFCC’s case against Achimugu’s company

At the last proceedings in the matter on November 4, 2025, the court adjourned to today due to the absence of the third defendant, Erhunmuuse, in court, though the prosecution also applied for an adjournment.

The counsel who represented the police on the day told the court that the prosecutor handling the matter was on official assignment outside the country.

Counsel for Osakwe, Ayuba Kawu, opposed the prosecution’s application and told the court that his client had travelled from the United States specifically to attend the sitting.

He subsequently urged the court to strike out the charge for want of diligent prosecution, describing the prosecution as unserious.

On his part, the second defendant, Giwa, who appeared for himself, also opposed the application for adjournment by the prosecution and also aligned with Kawu’s submission that the charge be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.

In her ruling, Justice Bature held that although the case had suffered several adjournments, largely at the instance of the defence, the prosecution deserved the benefit of the doubt.

According to her, “In the interest of justice, both parties must be given the opportunity to be heard.”

She subsequently overruled the defendants’ objection and refused the application to strike out the charge.

The judge then directed that all pending applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction would be taken when the prosecution is present to respond.

She also ordered counsel to the third defendant to ensure that his client’s appearance in court on the next adjourned date and directed that the prosecution be duly served with the necessary notice.