Alleged False Information: Turaki’s Arraignment Delayed as Court Adjourns To March 5 by Our Correspondent
Alleged False Information:
Turaki’s Arraignment Delayed as Court Adjourns To March 5
The planned arraignment of Dr. Kabiru Turaki (SAN) before Justice K.N. Ogbonnaya of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory was postponed on Wednesday, owing to a petition submitted by the Defendant.
Turaki faces prosecution on a single charge brought forth by the Inspector General of Police, accusing him of purportedly furnishing false information to law the police.
The charge marked FCT/HC/CR/647/25, filed on November 15, 2025, stated, “That you Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, (SAN), ‘m’ no. 37 T.Y Danjuma Street, Asokoro, Abuja on or about 5th October, 2022 at Abuja within the jurisdiction of this honourable court you gave false information to the Inspector-General of Police via Petition dated 5th October, 2022…
The charge further stated that the offence is punishable under Section 140 of the Penal Code Law”.
Recall that the defendant was initially listed on the cause list of Monday, January 26, for arraignment, but was not in court.
At the proceeding of January 26, the court had ordered the Defendant to appear in court on Wednesday, January 28, for his arraignment.
At a resumed sitting, Usman Rabiu, announced appearance for the prosecution while
S. Nasir appeared for the defendant.
The prosecution counsel told the court that based on its order of January 26 summoning the Defendant to appear in court today (January 28), “the matter is for arraignment, my Lord. However, the Defendant has decided to stay away.
“In the circumstances, it is our humble application that this court should issue a warrant of arrest against the defendant under Section 143 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, adding it is at the discretion.
Reacting, the
defence counsel informed the Judge that Turaki (Defendant) “was not in court because there’s a letter to the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court seeking transfer of the case to another court.
Turaki’s lawyer told Justice Ogbonnaya, that the petition has to do with issue of confidence.
“It is a common knowledge that justice is rooted in confidence and where there are issues that have to do with confidence, a party has the right to seek redress.
“The prosecution is also aware of the letter but even if they are not aware, but the letter having been partly read in court, they have full notice of the reason while the defendant is not in court, Nasir stated.
He, therefore, urged the court to disregard the prosecution’s application for warrant of arrest against Turaki, and dismiss same.
Replying further, the prosecution submitted that a proceeding before a court cannot be stopped because of a petition against a Judge.
“That the Defendant wrote a a petition to the Chief Judge of FCT High Court cannot make the court to suspend his arraignment.
“If this is allowed, any defendant could frustrate criminal trial by filing petitions whenever a matter is unfavourable to them, the prosecution posited.
Rabiu argued further that a party that disobeys a court order cannot come back to the same court seeking to be heard.
Ruling on the matter, Justice Ogbonnaya held that filing of a petition to the Chief Judge cannot stop a criminal proceeding from going on, insisting, it is upon a written instructions of a Chief Judge that a judge can stop a proceeding.
“There’s no law or judgement that says a Judge should stop proceeding because of a petition, except for a written instruction from the Chief Judge, the court reasoned.
Justice Ogbonnaya held that the law says where an order is made for arraignment, a party should obey the court by appearing, stressing that as long as the case is concerned, proceeding is still pending.
Re-echoing her earlier statement, the Judge stated that, may the day never come when a party and a lawyer will choose a judge who will handle there case.
However, the Judge hinted that she was minded to adjourn the case and not to grant an arrest warrant against Turaki because she has been intructed by the CJ, “whom I hold in high esteem and have respect for, to respond to the petition”.
Meanwhile, the matter has been adjourned to March 5.
It will be recalled that Justice Ogbonnaya had in a ruling on a motion on notice for the court to set aside it’s order of substituted service made on December 3, 2025, wondered why the defendant being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, could have lawyers to come to court to make an application, yet same lawyers could not inform him to appear in court having been notified by his office of a pending charge, and at the same time, he is challenging the order of court.
Justice Ogbonnaya had on Monday stated that “If court chases laymen with judicial bulala (cane), will court also chase a SAN with judicial bulala?”.
Insisting that court is farmland of lawyers, the judge said “It is the view of court that it cannot set aside the order because it was legally made.
The court noted that for the defendant to have a counsel in court shows that he is aware of the charge and “the fact that he was served by substituted means through his law firm, and the fact that there was an attempt at personal service, all showed he was aware of the charge.
Contrary to the submission of Defendant’s counsel, the court held that there’s no provision of the law or ACJA that says an order for substituted service must be through writing and not orally.
More so, Justice Ogbonnaya held that the court has power to apply any procedure that will meet justice and fair hearing of a case, stressing that is why the court allowed the prosecution to make the oral application.
“The application lacks merit. Court has jurisdiction and the motion is dismissed,” she stated.
“Ordinarily, I should have granted a bench warrant but the Court using it’s discretion cannot grant it. The Defendant should be here on Wednesday, January 28, for arraignment, the court held. END.
