Follow Us on Google
The FCT High Court, Abuja, has adjourned the trial of lawyer Victor Giwa and another defendant in a criminal case instituted by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) until November 18 and 19, 2026, following the failure of a subpoenaed witness, Chief Awa U. Kalu (SAN), to appear in court.
The trial was stalled on Monday after counsel to Kalu, Dr Sunny Ajala (SAN), informed the court that his client had filed an application seeking to set aside or vary the subpoena compelling him to testify.
The matter, registered as Charge No. CR/150/2025, was called at 10:25 a.m. for continuation of trial.
Prosecution counsel, S.A. Medugu, alongside E.T. Emmanuel, told the court that he had received a letter from Ajala requesting a stand-down or adjournment on behalf of the subpoenaed witness.
Medugu said the letter referred to a motion filed by Kalu and served on the prosecution on November 6, although he had yet to examine the application.
He, however, maintained that Kalu had been duly served with the subpoena on October 7 and 12, 2026, adding that proof of service and acknowledged copies bearing the stamp of the witness’s chambers were already before the court.
Citing Section 397 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the prosecutor argued that a person served with a subpoena was legally required to attend court until discharged.
He said the prosecution could have sought a warrant of arrest under Sections 243, 244 and 246 of the ACJA but would refrain from doing so out of respect for the senior lawyer.
Medugu consequently urged the court to order Kalu to appear on the next adjourned date.
Responding, Ajala said he was briefed by Kalu, SAN early Monday morning and had encountered difficulties arising from conflicting court engagements.
He argued that his client, although not a party to the substantive criminal proceedings, was entitled to constitutional protection and fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Ajala informed the court that Kalu had filed a motion on notice seeking to set aside or vary the subpoena to reduce the hardship its enforcement could impose on him.
He subsequently sought leave to move the application, but the prosecution opposed an immediate hearing, requesting an adjournment to enable it study the motion and file a response.
Ajala did not oppose the request.
The proceedings also witnessed a heated exchange after Giwa, who appeared in person, protested what he described as his exclusion from proceedings concerning the subpoenaed witness.
He expressed concern that an application relating to a witness expected to testify in the case was being entertained without his being served or given an opportunity to make representations.
In response, Ajala disputed Giwa’s account of the proceedings, insisting that the first defendant’s narration of what transpired was inaccurate.
He recalled that when the prosecution raised the issue of the subpoenaed witness’s request for a stand-down or adjournment on October 30, the court had asked whether any other party wished to respond.
According to Ajala, he had specifically asked the court about the position of defence counsel, following which Giwa indicated that his lawyer was absent and that he was representing himself.
Ajala subsequently urged Giwa to withdraw his remarks or rephrase his complaint and apologise to the court.
The exchange escalated after Medugu accused Giwa of repeatedly making allegations against the court.
The court subsequently asked Giwa whether he would apologise to the court and the Bar following the observations made by the senior lawyer.
Giwa responded: “Yes, my Lord, I apologise to the Court and to the Bar.”
In his ruling, the judge adjourned the matter to November 18 and 19, 2026, for continuation of proceedings and consideration of the pending issues.
The court also vacated the earlier dates of November 11 and 16, which had previously been fixed for the trial.
The adjournment followed the absence of the subpoenaed witness, Kalu, SAN and the prosecution’s request for time to respond to his application challenging the subpoena.
