Justice Maryann Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, has frowned at what she described as “time-wasting tactics” by defence counsel in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman.

Mamman seven other defendants – Mustapha Abubakar Bida, Joseph Omotayo Adewunmi, Ben Nsikak, Stephen Ojo, Oladipo Adebowale, Michael Achua and Ogunjobi Olusola, are facing trial in a nine-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence and intent to defraud, involving the alleged sum of N31,070,541,349.64.

The court’s reaction followed an objection by counsel to the second defendant, Temitayo Sonuyi (SAN), who urged the court to halt the commencement of the trial pending the determination of his application challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the propriety of the charge.

Responding, Justice Anenih held that the application was not ripe for hearing as the processes ought to be studied before delivering a ruling.

“I have listened to both parties. However, reading the prayers, I cannot take the application when I have not seen or read it. It is not ripe for hearing at this point and the final process is not in the case file before me.

“I cannot come here, sit down and waste time for nothing. Counsel, please let us proceed with the trial. When we come on the next adjourned date, I can deliver my ruling”, the judge said.

Earlier, Sonuyi had informed the court that two applications filed on December 5 and 10, 2025, questioned the appropriateness of the charge and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Responding, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), told the court that the second defendant was served with a counter-affidavit on January 6, adding that the prosecution was fully prepared to proceed with the trial and had its witnesses in court. He therefore urged the court to allow the trial to continue and hear the applications at a later date in order to avoid waste of judicial time.

Following the court’s position, Sonuyi sought leave to withdraw his affidavit in response to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit, assuring the court that he would regularise all processes.

Counsel to the sixth defendant, J. A. Egwaede, informed the court that the prosecution’s counter-affidavit was only served on him in court and requested an adjournment to enable him study and respond appropriately.

Ruling on the applications, Justice Anenih granted an adjournment in the interest of justice, noting that the court was duty-bound to hear the jurisdictional challenge, which would ultimately determine the course of the proceedings.

The case was consequently adjourned to February 18, March 11 and March 25, for ruling on the pending applications and continuation of the trial.