The arraignment of five retired senior police officers at the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, scheduled for Thursday, September 25, was stalled following their absence.
The police were unable to personally serve the officers with the charges, which relate to alleged age falsification.
Persecondnews reports that Thursday’s development marked the third time the scheduled arraignment before Justice Yusuf Halilu had failed.
The defendants, comprising retired AIG Idowu Owohunwa, retired CP Benneth Igweh, retired CP Ukachi Peter Opara, retired DCP Obo Ukam Obo, and retired ACP Simon A. Lough, are facing a 14-count charge filed by the Inspector-General of Police.
In the charge marked CR/353/2025, Owohunwa, Igweh, Opara, Obo and Lough are charged with conspiracy, age falsification and forgery, among other offences.
One of the charges alleges that the defendants, who enlisted in the Nigeria Police Force in 1999, conspired to falsify their ages in order to remain in service beyond the mandatory retirement age, in contravention of Section 97(1)(2) of the Penal Code Law.
Another charge states that they falsified and altered their ages and official documents with the intention of illegally prolonging their service, thereby benefiting from office privileges contrary to the Public Service Rules of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an act said to amount to cheating under Section 324 of the Penal Code Law.
The defendants are also charged with making fraudulent declarations, submitting falsified documents to police records, and dishonestly deposing to false claims in court proceedings, contrary to Sections 158(1), 178 and 366 of the Penal Code Law.
Persecondnews recalls that at the last sitting, Justice Halilu had ordered the Inspector-General of Police to do everything within his power to produce the defendants in court for their arraignment.
That order followed complaints by the prosecution counsel, ACP Rimamsomte Ezekiel, that the defendants had failed to appear despite being allegedly served with the charge.
However, when the case came up on Thursday, the defendants were again absent.
Ezekiel expressed disappointment, noting that despite assurances given by their counsel, Mr. Goddy Uche (SAN), at the previous sitting that they would attend, they had failed to do so.
He further informed the court that investigators made repeated attempts to serve the defendants at their known residential addresses, only to discover they had relocated.
Ezekiel said he also sent a soft copy of the charge to their WhatsApp platforms, yet they did not appear.
He therefore urged the court to issue a bench warrant against them pursuant to Section 266(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
However, defence counsel, Mr. Terkaa Aondo (SAN), opposed the application, insisting that the defendants had not been personally served with the charges.
“My Lord, up till now, the defendants have not been served with a copy of the charge. This is a criminal case which requires personal service, not substituted service. Until the defendants are properly before the court, any request for a bench warrant is premature.
“The police have the apparatus to bring the defendants to court. If they could arrest Nnamdi Kanu in Kenya and Omoyele Sowore in Nigeria, why can they not arrest these defendants and bring them before the court?
“I urge Your Lordship to refuse the request and order the prosecution to do the needful,” Aondo submitted.
In his ruling, Justice Halilu agreed with the defence counsel that criminal charges require personal service on the defendants.
He also observed that the police possess the means to arrest and bring the defendants to court for their arraignment.
On the prosecution’s request for a bench warrant, the judge held that such an order was premature, since the defendants had not been properly brought before the court.
“You granted them bail on self-recognition. It remains your responsibility to ensure they are brought before the court to take their plea.
“You are the prosecutor. You should do all within your powers to ensure that the defendants attend court on the next adjourned date for arraignment,” Justice Halilu ruled.
He further directed the defence counsel to also ensure the appearance of the defendants at the next sitting.
The case was adjourned until November 17 for arraignment.
Leave a comment