The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting at Apo has struck out six motions filed by Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, in his ongoing trial over alleged forgery and impersonation, holding that petitions to judicial authorities do not halt criminal proceedings.

Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, in a ruling delivered on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, struck out the applications marked M/7057/25, M/12210/25, M/14379/25, M/15452/25, M/16530/25 and M/16695/25, including a motion seeking his recusal. The court held that the first defendant had declined to move the motions after filing petitions to the Chief Judge of the FCT and seeking an indefinite adjournment pending their determination.

Giwa and a co-defendant, Bukola, are standing trial on allegations of forging official documents and impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Awa Kalu, allegedly to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation into withdrawing a criminal charge earlier filed against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama.

At the resumed proceedings, prosecuting counsel, T. Y. Silas, appeared for the Inspector-General of Police. The second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje, while Levi E. Nwonye appeared by watching brief for the nominal complainant. Counsel to the first defendant, Ibrahim Idris, SAN, was absent, prompting Giwa to appear in person and conduct his defence.

Silas informed the court that the matter had previously been adjourned to enable the first defendant engage counsel so that all pending motions by both parties could be taken. He said the prosecution was ready to proceed with the applications.
Giwa objected, arguing that he had written three petitions to the Chief Judge of the FCT alleging that he could not obtain justice due to what he described as the trial judge’s biased attitude. Relying on Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, he urged the court to recuse itself, insisting that “justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.” He further claimed that a letter dated January 19, 2026, addressed to the court, was rejected by the registrar and maintained that having written to the Chief Judge on January 14, 2026, he would not submit to further proceedings.

The prosecution opposed the objection, relying on Sections 98(2) and 306(c) of the ACJA, 2015. Silas told the court that the prosecution had already opened its case on October 30, 2025, with the testimony of its first witness, PW1, and argued that petitions to the Chief Judge do not automatically stay criminal proceedings. He described the applications as a deliberate attempt to delay the trial and cited authorities including Okeke v. State and Tiput v. Dawamkat, urging the court to allow the matter proceed.

Counsel to the second defendant aligned with Giwa’s submissions and urged the court to grant the recusal application.
In his reply, Giwa challenged the prosecution’s reliance on Section 98(2) of the ACJA, contending that calling a single witness did not amount to properly opening the prosecution’s case. He asked the court to suspend proceedings pending investigations into his petitions by the Chief Judge of the FCT and the National Judicial Council.

In a bench ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie agreed with the prosecution, holding that petitions to the Chief Judge or the NJC do not, by themselves, operate as a stay of criminal proceedings. The court observed that the conduct of the first defendant showed a pattern aimed at frustrating the trial and noted that Giwa’s refusal to move his own motions amounted to disobedience of court orders.

The court accordingly struck out all six motions filed by the first defendant and adjourned the case to January 26, 2026. It also noted that the matter had earlier been adjourned to January 28, 2026, but the date was brought forward after Giwa informed the court that he would be appearing before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee on that day.