Judge adjourns Giwa forgery trial after defence lawyer leaves court

The trial for forgery and impersonation involving Abuja-based lawyer Victor Giwa was put on hold on Wednesday when his defense attorney left the courtroom before the judge arrived, prompting the court to adjourn the proceedings.

Giwa and co‑defendant Ibitade Bukola are being tried before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Apo on charges of forging official documents and impersonating Senior Advocate of Nigeria Awa Kalu.

During the hearing, prosecutor Wisdom Madaki, representing the Inspector‑General of Police’s legal team, informed the court that Giwa’s lawyer, Farooq Akanbi, had been present but departed before the case was called, leaving the defendant without legal representation.

Madaki suggested that the lawyer’s exit appeared intended to delay the case. He noted that the defense had already received the prosecution’s response to Giwa’s request for the release of his international passport, as well as an additional affidavit filed on May 22, 2026.

Explaining the incident, Madaki said: “I showed him the document for identification, after reviewing it, he said he had no objection but insisted his motion was more important.”

When the matter was briefly addressed, Giwa informed the court that his lawyer no longer wished to continue with the case. He then requested to represent himself, citing the urgency of his passport release application and his constitutional right to self‑representation under Section 36(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution.

The prosecution urged the court to proceed to avoid further delays, arguing that the case was ready for hearing. However, Justice Onwuegbuzie declined to continue without clarification from the defense lawyer.

“I will not allow that. The first defendant has counsel. Let him come and clear the air,” the judge said.

The judge emphasized that any lawyer wishing to withdraw must follow proper procedures or formally notify the court. He also criticized the defense for what he described as a lack of respect for the court by failing to ensure representation or communicate any change in legal strategy.

Consequently, the judge adjourned the case until June 10, 2026, for the continuation of the trial. The sitting scheduled for June 4 was cancelled due to the court’s official engagements.