Thus, Justice Abang was forced to make what he referred to as his “first findings” in the case that the Counsels that were present in court and have been conducting the case were bound to continue conducting the case. He also noted that records of the Court show that all the applications and processes related to the case have been filed by them.
The Judge who noted that fair hearing in the case applies to the defendant, not the counsel seeking to come in noted that none of the parties have been denied fair hearing.
“The defendant is being represented by five SANs. The last date parties were in court was 24 March, over three weeks ago, over three days stipulated by ACJA if the second defendant which is an entity controlled by the first defendant had wished to disengage the services of the counsel, he has more than enough time to have briefed another counsel to take up his defence.”
In relation to records of proceedings, the Judge noted that there is a pending interlocutory appeal in which all the proceedings and documents related to the trial have been compiled and given to the defence team.
“The party briefing the new lawyer has all the documents. The second application for adjournment, application for disqualification should be taken,” noted the Judge.
Even with the ruling, the elderly Onwugbufor persisted, insisting on an adjournment of proceedings to enable him argue the case of his client. But the Judge insisted that the second’s defendant’s change of counsel cannot stop proceedings.
“The second defendant was represented in court when the matter was adjourned. If the second defendant has chosen to change counsel, that cannot stop proceedings. The second defendant’s right to fair hearing is guaranteed. Emeka Etiaba who appeared for the second defendant is still in court. He has not complied with ACJA. He is still the counsel to the second defendant,” Justice Abang ruled when Onwugbufor persisted in his argument for adjournment when his input to the application asking the court to disqualify itself from hearing of the case was being argued.
After the defence and prosecution counsel had argued briefs earlier adopted, Justice Abang dismissed the suit asking him to disqualify himself from further hearing of the case.
The Judge ruled that the petitioners provided no fact or evidence to show that the court is biased against him and that he has responded to the petition.
He affirmed that the CJN is satisfied with his petition. He therefore declared that the petition not only lacks merit, but was an abuse of court process and consequently dismissed it.
He then asked the parties to address him on the application to suspend hearing pending the determination of interlocutory appeal filed at the Court of Appeal by the defence team.
In response, Etiaba appealed to the court to grant the stay because it is harmless and due to the fact that the Court of Appeal has already fixed 28 April for hearing of the suit among other reasons.
But again, Onwugbufor insisted that he has not been given the facility to make oral argument and embarked on lengthy arguments of why the proceedings should be adjourned to allow him study the court processes and applications to put up effective defence.
The elderly lawyer therefore asked the court again for an adjournment to enable him study the court processes.
He was opposed by the prosecuting counsel who argued that none of the leading counsels who have been defending the defendant had applied to withdraw from the case.
The prosecutor added that the Counsels have also not complied with conditions for withdrawal from the case as stipulated by ACJA.
As will be expected, Etiaba again aligned with Onwugbufor in the last attempt to delay the trial asking the court to allow the defendant to look at the application, appraise it and know what his stand will be on it.
In his ruling, Justice Abang affirmed that the Court has not given Etiaba who has been defending the second defendant the leave to disappear, as the lawyer failed to notify the court that he is withdrawing from the case the last time he was in court.
“The second defendant has a right to change his counsel, but he cannot do so to frustrate trial,” the Judge ruled as he dismissed the application for adjournment.
Leave a Reply