The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Apo on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, was forced to adjourn the ongoing forgery and impersonation trial of Abuja-based lawyer Victor Giwa after defence counsel exited the courtroom before the presiding judge entered.
The defendant and co-accused, Ibitade Bukola, are standing trial before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie over allegations of forging official documents and impersonating Senior Advocate of Nigeria Awa Kalu.
Prosecuting counsel, Wisdom Madaki, who held brief for Eristo Asaph of the Inspector-General of Police’s legal team, told the court that defence counsel, Farooq Akanbi, arrived in court but left before proceedings commenced, leaving the defendant without representation.
According to the prosecution, the withdrawal was a deliberate attempt to stall the proceedings of today, despite prior service of the prosecution’s response to Giwa’s application for release of his international passport, alongside a “further and better affidavit” filed on May 22, 2026.
“I showed him the document for identification… after reviewing it, he said he had no objection but insisted his motion was more important,” Madaki told the court, adding that both defence teams were aware of the filings.
When proceedings resumed briefly, Giwa informed the court that his counsel had declined to continue with the case and that he would represent himself, citing urgency in his application for the release of his international passport.
He also relied on his constitutional right to self-representation under Section 36 (6) (C) of the 1999 Constitution.
However, the prosecution urged the court to proceed in order to avoid further delay, noting that the matter was already ripe for hearing.
In a firm ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie declined to proceed, holding that the defendant’s counsel remained on record and must account for his absence.
“I will not allow that. The first defendant has counsel. Let him come and clear the air,” the judge ruled, stressing that the court expected proper withdrawal procedures or communication from counsel.
The judge further observed that the defence had shown “no respect for the court” by failing to ensure representation or formally notifying the court of any change in legal strategy.
Consequently, the matter was adjourned to June 10, 2026, for continuation of trial, while the next date sitting for 4th June 2026 was vacated due to the court’s official engagement.