There was a mild drama at a Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, when a lawyer, Abubakar Mohammed, who was hired to only observe proceedings stood up and told Justice Samira Bature, that the case before her is being delayed.

Mohammed was hired by Asabe Waziri, who had alleged and complaint to the Attorney-Genetal that he was illegally evicted from a property in Maitama District of Abuja, where she lived to only watch and observe proceedings before the court.

A lawyer, Victor Giwa, Cecil Osakwe and Ms Edith Erhunmuuse, were accused of illegally ejecting Asabe from the property.

Shortly after. Mohammed spoke, Giwa stood up amd told the court that Counsel to Asabe, Mohammed, has no right to talk before the court that he was only before the court to announce appearance and watch proceedings.

Mohammed. Was hired tomwat h the brief of Asabe in the court.

According to him, Mohammed was his staff, who was hired by Asabe to appear in the case against him.

He said, “The victim (Asabe) is the one harrasing me, she is now using my former staff against me in court.

“He has no right to address the court, his mission in this court is only to watch brief for the victim”.

But Justice Bature, in her response agreed with Giwa and said that she did not record everything Mohammed said in the court.

The case could not however, go on due to the absence of Erhunmuuse, who has been said to be absent because of ill-health and could not also afford a lawyer.

The case was adjourned to the 24th of April, 2024.

At the last adjoured date, the court was told that the case had earlier suffered delays, including an adjournment to allow the third defendant secure legal representation.

Although the third defendant is now represented by counsel, Mr C. C. Onyechere, she was absent from court, with her counsel attributing her absence to ill health.

The prosecution also informed the court that at a previous sitting, proceedings were stalled after the counsel handling the matter was said to be on official assignment outside the country.

Justice Bature recalled that the court had warned against delays capable of frustrating the arraignment of the defendants.

In her ruling, Justice Bature held that although the matter had suffered several adjournments, warning that no further adjournment will be tolerated.

The judge further directed that all pending applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction would be taken when the prosecution is present to respond.

Emphasising the need for fairness, Justice Bature stated that “in the interest of justice, both parties must be given the opportunity to be heard.”

She also ordered counsel to the third defendant to ensure his client’s appearance in court on the next adjourned date and that the prosecution is duly served with the necessary notice.