FCT High Court Grants Seventh Adjournment in Victor Giwa, Ibitade Bukola Forgery and Impersonation Trial Despite Prosecution Outcry

In a development that has raised eyebrows in legal circles, a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Apo, Abuja, on Monday, January 26, granted yet another adjournment in the high-profile trial of Abuja-based lawyers Victor Giwa and Ibitade Bukola. The duo are facing serious allegations of forgery and impersonation, with the prosecution accusing the defence of employing deliberate tactics to stall proceedings.

The adjournment, which marks the seventh time Giwa has sought to delay the trial and the fourth instance of him changing legal counsel, came despite vehement opposition from the prosecuting team, who described the move as a calculated attempt to frustrate justice.

Court Proceedings Unfold Amid Tension

At the resumed hearing before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, prosecuting counsel T. Y. Silas, representing the Inspector-General of Police, urged the court to proceed with the hearing of the prosecution’s pending motion. However, Farook Akabi, appearing for Giwa from the law firm of Ahmed Raji, SAN, informed the court that his firm had only been briefed the previous day. Akabi explained that Raji intended to personally handle the case but was unavailable due to another engagement, thus requesting an adjournment for adequate preparation.

Silas strongly opposed the application, arguing, “This is the seventh date the first defendant is seeking adjournment to prevent this motion from being heard. It is also the fourth time he is changing counsel strictly to delay this trial.” He noted that Giwa was fully aware of the hearing date and had previously indicated readiness to defend himself. Silas highlighted that all processes had been exchanged, with the last filing occurring on December 1, 2025, making the motion ripe for adjudication.

Citing Section 396(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Silas contended that Giwa had exhausted statutory limits for adjournments and had become “an obstacle to a fair trial within reasonable time.” He further referenced Supreme Court decisions in Etsako West LGA v. Christopher and Tiput v. Dawankat to emphasize that litigation cannot drag on indefinitely.

Ogbu Aboje, counsel for the second defendant Bukola, appealed for restraint, confirming that he had contacted Raji, who verified the recent briefing. Aboje also mentioned a pending motion by Giwa to relist a previously struck-out application, urging the court to consider it in the interest of justice. He stated that Bukola did not oppose a short adjournment.

Levi E. Nwoye held a watching brief for the complainant, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Awa Kalu.

In his ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie expressed grave concern over Giwa’s conduct, noting a pattern of delays. “Each time the first defendant appears, he adopts a storyline to prevent the matter from proceeding,” the judge remarked, adding that “the court works with evidence, not theatrics.”

The judge recalled Giwa’s history in the case, including self-representation at times, appearances with three different SANs, and over 30 different counsel. He also referenced prior warnings against delay tactics and Giwa’s petition to the Chief Judge and National Judicial Council (NJC), which the NJC dismissed, stating it could not halt the trial and that case assignments fall under the Chief Judge’s discretion.

Despite acknowledging the delays, the court adjourned the matter to February 4, 2026, “in the interest of justice.”

Background: A Case Rooted in Alleged Deception to Evade Justice

The charges against Giwa and Bukola stem from accusations that they forged official documents and impersonated SAN Awa Kalu to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing earlier criminal charges against Giwa at the FCT High Court in Maitama. The alleged forgery was purportedly aimed at derailing a prior prosecution, highlighting a web of legal maneuvers that have drawn scrutiny to the defendants’ actions.

Proceedings in the case date back to at least May 2025, when Giwa filed his first motion (M/757/25) seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. By October 30, 2025, the prosecution had opened its case, calling the first witness (PW1). However, the trial has been marred by repeated interruptions.

In November 2025, Giwa sought the judge’s recusal, alleging bias and claiming the trial was “pre-arranged” by the complainant. Supported by a 74-paragraph affidavit and 15 exhibits, Giwa invoked Sections 6(6) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution. Justice Onwuegbuzie dismissed the motion as “borne out of mere imagination,” lacking credible evidence, and adjourned to November 27, 2025, for further hearings.

More recently, on January 21, 2026, the court struck out six motions filed by Giwa (marked M/7057/25, M/12210/25, M/14379/25, M/15452/25, M/16530/25, and M/16695/25), including another recusal bid. Giwa, appearing in person due to his counsel’s absence, insisted on awaiting outcomes of his petitions to the FCT Chief Judge (filed January 14, 2026) alleging judicial bias. The judge ruled that such petitions do not stay proceedings, citing Sections 98(2) and 306(c) of the ACJA, and described Giwa’s actions as a “consistent pattern” to frustrate the trial. The matter was then adjourned to January 26, brought forward from January 28 due to Giwa’s appearance before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

Implications for Nigeria’s Justice System

This latest adjournment has sparked discussions among legal experts about the challenges of protracted trials in Nigeria, where delay tactics can undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The prosecution’s frustration underscores ongoing concerns over adherence to the ACJA’s provisions for speedy trials.

As the case heads to February 4, all eyes remain on whether the defence’s strategies will persist or if the court will finally push for substantive hearings. NaijaChoice News will continue to monitor developments in this unfolding legal drama.