There was a brief moment of tension at a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday when a lawyer, Abubakar Mohammed, who was only supposed to observe proceedings, stood up and told Justice Samira Bature that the case before her was being delayed.

Mohammed had been representing the complainant, Asabe Waziri, who alleged she was illegally evicted from a property in Maitama, Abuja. However, he was officially instructed to merely observe the proceedings.

The defendants – human rights lawyer Victor Giwa, Cecil Osakwe, and Edith Erhunmuuse – were accused of unlawfully ejecting Waziri from the property.

During Tuesday’s session, Giwa rose to inform the court that Mohammed had no authority to speak, as his role was limited to observing and announcing appearance on behalf of the complainant. Giwa added that Mohammed, previously his staff, was now being used against him in the case.

“The alleged victim is now using my former staff against me in court. He has no right to address the court; his mission was only to observe on her behalf,” Giwa stated.

Justice Bature agreed with Giwa, noting that she had not recorded Mohammed’s statements in the proceedings.

The hearing, however, could not continue due to the absence of one of the respondents, Erhunmuuse, who reportedly missed court due to ill health and lacked legal representation. The judge subsequently adjourned the case to April 24, 2024.

At the previous sitting, the court was informed that the case had already experienced delays, including an earlier adjournment to allow Erhunmuuse secure legal counsel. Although she now has representation through lawyer C.C. Onyechere, her absence on Tuesday was again attributed to ill health.

The prosecution also noted that a prior adjournment occurred because the counsel handling the case had been away on official duties abroad.

Justice Bature reminded the court that delays capable of frustrating the arraignment of defendants had been previously cautioned against. She emphasized that the matter had already suffered multiple adjournments and warned that no further delays would be tolerated.

The judge directed that all pending applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction would be considered once the prosecution is present to respond. Stressing fairness, she stated, “In the interest of justice, both parties must be given the opportunity to be heard.”

Finally, Justice Bature instructed the counsel for the third defendant to ensure her client’s presence at the next hearing and to serve the prosecution with the necessary notices.