The scheduled arraignment of Nollywood actress Doris Ogala before a Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday, April 23, 2026, was stalled due to her absence, with her legal counsel citing recent surgery.
The Federal Government is pursuing a four-count charge against her for alleged cyberstalking of Pastor Chris Okafor of Grace Nation Liberation City.
The charges, under the Cybercrimes Amendment Act, 2024, include publishing intimate photographs of Pastor Okafor without consent, spreading false allegations (including rape and murder), and attempted extortion.
At the proceedings before Justice Akintayo Aluko, prosecuting counsel, Tolulope Mokuola, drew the court’s attention to the absence of the defendant and applied for the issuance of a bench warrant.
“My Lord, the defendant is absent despite being duly served with hearing notice,” Mokuola submitted. “We respectfully apply for a bench warrant to compel her attendance.”
In opposition, defence counsel, Temiloluwa Akindayini, informed the court that his client was unable to attend due to health reasons, stating that she had undergone surgery two days earlier.
“My Lord, the defendant is indisposed, having undergone a surgical procedure on April 21, 2026,” he said.
“She is currently in Abia State recuperating. An affidavit to that effect has been filed before this Honourable Court,” Akindayini said.
Also Read:
- Kvaratskhelia hopes to fire PSG past Bayern into final
- Lawyers decry absence of clear legal framework for skit makers in Nigeria
- Alleged N1.6bn money laundering: EFCC re-arraigns Bauchi AG, BDC operator
- SMEDAN raises concern over low MSMEs participation in support programmes
- Despite N85.13trn trade boost, manufacturers decry low export share
Responding, the prosecutor faulted the defence for failing to serve the said affidavit and for not notifying the prosecution ahead of the hearing.
“My Lord, we were not served with the affidavit, and no prior notice was given regarding any medical condition,” Mokuola argued.
“The hearing notice provided sufficient time to inform both the court and the prosecution,” he said.
He further questioned the authenticity of the medical report relied upon by the defence.
“The medical report is not from a government hospital, which is the standard requirement,” he added. “There is no clear means of verifying its authenticity.”
In his remarks, Justice Aluko noted the procedural lapse on the part of the defence.
“The defence ought to have properly notified the prosecution and ensured service of the relevant processes,” the court observed.
However, the court declined to grant the application for a bench warrant, holding that the interest of justice required that the defendant be given the benefit of doubt, particularly as the affidavit was already before the court.
Following this, the prosecution urged the court to mandate that any subsequent medical report be issued by a government hospital and that the defence be held accountable should the defendant fail to appear at the next adjourned date.
“My Lord, we urge the court to insist on a verifiable medical report from a government hospital and to hold the defence responsible if the defendant is absent at the next sitting,” Mokuola submitted.
Ruling on the issue, Justice Aluko directed the defendant to produce a comprehensive and verifiable medical report from a government hospital and ensure the same is served on the prosecution before the next date.
“The defendant shall present a verifiable medical report from a government hospital and serve the same on the prosecution,” the court held.
“She is also to be present in court at the next adjourned date for her arraignment,” the judge said.
The matter was consequently adjourned to June 9, 2026, for arraignment.
