A Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has issued a final warning to property developer Cecil Osakwe, to appear before it for arraignment.
Osakwe, a legal practitioner Victor Giwa, and Edith Erhunmuuse are to be arraigned on a nine-count bordering on alleged illegal eviction, criminal intimidation, threats to life, and property damage in the sum of N300 million.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, the second defendant (Giwa) and the third defendant (Erhunmuuse), were in court but the first defendant (Osakwe) was absent.
The Prosecution counsel M.O. Una expressed frustration, noting that Osakwe, the first defendant, failed to appear for the fifth consecutive time emphasising that the case, which began in 2023, has been stalled repeatedly due to the first defendant’s persistent absence.
‘I am surprised the first defendant is not in court today, as this matter suffered a similar fate during the last sitting. It is obvious he is avoiding arraignment, and we urge the court to compel his appearance’.
The defence counsel, Chibunna Odiniru, presented two applications before the court: one challenging its jurisdiction and the other seeking an adjournment.
Odiniru explained that Osakwe was in a hospital abroad with life-threatening medical conditions and submitted a doctor’s report to support this claim.
‘The first defendant requires eight weeks of intensive medical care to recover and be fit for trial. This is prosecution, not persecution. No one wishes sickness upon themselves, and it is vital he receives the necessary medical care,’ Odiniru argued.
Despite the explanation, Una pointed out that this is the third time Osakwe has cited medical reasons to seek adjournments, suggesting a pattern of delay tactics.
The trial judge, Justice Samira Bature acknowledged the serial adjournments but granted a final extension, adjourning the matter until 17 March 2025, for arraignment.
‘The court has taken judicial notice of these repeated delays. If the first defendant fails to appear on the next date, we will have no option but to issue a warrant of arrest,’ she ruled.
Meanwhile, the third defendant again appeared without legal representation, the judge instructed her to secure counsel before the next hearing.
The prosecution was also directed to assist in ensuring the defendant has adequate representation.
