Judge lambasts prosecution over trial of Justice Ademola, wife, SAN

Justice Jude Okeke of an Abuja High Court on Monday ‎lambasted the prosecution for the manner in which it is handling the trial of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, his wife, Omobowale; and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Joe Agi, over allegation of receipt of gratification.
The judge said the way the prosecution was carrying on, it was not ready for the trial.
Okeke warned that the court will no longer accept the continued delay of the trial.
He said if the prosecution does not produce its witnesses at the next adjourned date, the court will be forced to do the needful.
The court later adjourned till Tuesday (today) instead of Wednesday, which the prosecution requested for.
The prosecution counsel, Segun Jegede, had prayed the court for an adjournment till Wednesday in order to get his witnesses ready.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Jegede told the court that he was informed by one of his witnesses, Dr. Shaibu Teidi, that his life was being threatened and that he (Teidi) had reported the same to the Police in Maitama Division in Abuja.
Jegede added that the police had however taken Teidi to a secured destination, a situation which prevented him from coming to court.
Responding, the counsel to Ademola, Onyechi Ikpeazu, objected to the information being given by the prosecution on the ground that such should have been communicated to him first.
In a short ruling, the court held that it was not ready to delve into the issue since it has been reported to the police.
Okeke however urged the police to carry out its investigation on the allegation.
He consequently ordered the Inspector General of Police to provide security for the prosecution, its witnesses, the defence team and all their witnesses as well.
After this, Jegede further prayed the court for adjournment till Wednesday for the continuation of trial, adding that such will enable him to get his witnesses.
The defence team however strongly objected to the adjournment.
The counsel to the three defendants – Ikpeazu, Roberts Clarke and Jeph Njikonye – submitted that the prosecution should apply to withdraw the charge if it has no witness to bring.
They informed the court that the prosecution listed 14 witnesses out of which they have only called six and that by the allegation, only Teidi is being threatened.
They however submitted that the prosecution should go ahead and call other witnesses that are not being threatened to come and give evidence in the matter.
The defence further noted that the prosecution did not give any reason why he is seeking for an adjournment and that granting of such application will portray the prosecution as persecuting the defendants.
They further submitted that the pendency of the suit is hampering the dispensation of the duty of the first defendant who is a serving judge and the second defendant who is the current Head of Service of Lagos State.
In addition, they added that the application for adjournment is not in accord with the intendment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ‎which provides for speedy dispensation of justice.
They prayed the court to refuse the application and dismiss same.
In his ruling, Justice Okeke noted that the only reason the prosecution gave to seek for adjournment was because one of his witnesses was threatened and that he wanted to get across to his witness.
The judge held: “Apart from those reasons, the prosecution did not give any other reason.
“This is not acceptable to court.
“The record of the court showed that the matter was adjourned till today for ruling and continuation of trial.
“Prosecution has other people listed as witnesses asides from Dr. Teidi and the prosecution has not said any of the other witnesses are being threatened.
“The implication is that apart from Teidi and a staff of GTB, the prosecution is not prepared to proceed with the trial.
“This is unacceptable to the court.
“The court is ready to go ahead with the trial.
“It was on that the court granted an order of accelerated trial.
“Even today, because of this case, the court this morning adjourned 11 other cases so as to hear the witnesses.
“The action of the prosecution has made the court to act in vain, especially to the defendants and other litigants that their cases were originally listed.
“The application for adjournment is uncalled for, unreasonable and does not fall in line with the attitude of the present government as contained in ACJA.
“It is not good enough, it is not with the spirit of time.
“On account of the foregoing, the prosecution has not given a cogent reason for the grant of the application, but the court will indulge the prosecution by granting the adjournment.
“But instead of Wednesday requested for by the prosecution, I will adjourn till tomorrow, and if the prosecution fails again to produce its witness, the court will do the needful.
“To be fore war‎ned is to be fore armed.”