Offa Robbery Case: ‘My Lord, Why the hurry?’, Lawyer Asks Judge

The ongoing criminal case filed by the Kwara State Government against two former governors, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki and Mr. Abdulfatah Ahmed, and two others, has continued to produce different drama as the lawyer to Saraki, Mr. Adebayo Adelodun, SAN, yesterday asked Hon. Justice Osuolale Ajayi why he was in a sudden haste in the course of the proceeding.

The senior lawyer raised the question which obviously came as a shock to the judge and the entire court after submission had been made by the two parties and the judge gave his ruling on whether the hearing on the case had duly commenced. The judge, in his ruling, inadvertently entered into a pending motion by the defendants on which he had not previously given a decision. The defence then reminded him that that action would amount to the court overreaching itself.

When the judge ruled that the matter should proceed to arraignment, the defence lawyer reminded the judge that even the court’s record showed that the defendants had not been properly served with the process on the amended charges as only their lawyers were served. The defence counsel further argued that their clients cannot be arraigned when they are still contesting the fact that they had not been served with the process of the amended charges.

Justice Ajayi then ruled that the parties should return to court the same afternoon for his decision.

The whole court burst into laughter when Adelodun, SAN, who is representing Saraki asked the question of why there is sudden haste in a matter that has been in court since 2018. He also demanded to know what emergency has necessitated the need to make the case look like it would lead to the collapse of the entire world if it is not quickly determined.

The defence legal team had also reminded Justice Ajayi of the pending ruling of the Court of Appeal on the preliminary motion for a stay of proceedings at the trial court pending the decision of the appellate court on the matter of jurisdiction and the competence of the judge to preside over both civil and criminal suits on the same matter.

The judge had, in a previous proceeding, expressed his desire to await the ruling of the Court of Appeal on the defence’s motion that the parties be ordered to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the court’s decision on the issue of jurisdiction.

End