The criminal trial against the immediate past National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, his wife, Dr Hafsat Umar Ganduje, and six others over alleged misappropriation of public funds again suffered another setback on Monday.

The Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission has dragged Ganduje, his wife, and six others before the state high court on 11-count charges bordering on bribery, conspiracy, misappropriation, and diversion of public funds running into billions of naira.

Others charged in the alleged misappropriation include Abubakar Bawuro, Umar Abdullahi Umar, Jibrilla Muhammad, Lamash Properties Limited, Safari Textiles Limited, and Lasage General Enterprises Limited.

The trial, which was slated to hear witnesses from the prosecution against the defendants, however, stalled on Monday when Ganduje and the seven others declared they were not ready to proceed with the matter.

Earlier, counsel to the state government, Adeola Adedipe, Senior Advocate, told Justice Amina Adamu Aliyu of the readiness to open its case with witnesses already seated in court.

The mood at the court, however, changed when counsel representing Ganduje, his wife, and son, Lydia Oluwakemi-Oyewo, told the court she was not ready to proceed with the trial, citing improper service of the hearing notice.

Instead, Ganduje, through his lawyer, moved a motion on notice seeking the court to stay proceedings in the matter. Barrister Oyewo insisted the matter was already before the Court of Appeal.

Similarly, counsels to the 3rd and 7th defendants, Chief M. N. Duru, SAN, and Sunusi Musa, Senior Advocate and counsel to the 5th defendant, also told the court they were not ready to open their defence, adding that they had filed applications for a stay of proceedings before the Court of Appeal and a preliminary objection against the hearing.

In the same breath, counsel to the 6th respondent, Abubakar Ahmad, said they were not ready to proceed and had filed a notice of preliminary objection, while counsel to the 8th defendant, Abdulrazaq A. Ahmed, submitted a similar application, adding that the case was for mention since the earlier hearing date had been shifted.

The prosecution counsel, Adedipe, Senior Advocate, urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ applications to allow the matter to proceed, alleging a deliberate attempt by the defence counsel to drag the matter needlessly.

Adedipe equally pleaded with Justice Aliyu to, instead of suspending hearing on the substantive matter at the expense of pending motions, combine the hearing of both, but delay ruling till the end of the matter.

Justice Aliyu, however, overruled the prosecution counsel, insisting that applications bordering on preliminary objection must be settled before proceeding with the substantive application.

The court equally disregarded the application for the stay of execution, reminding that she was not mandated to stay execution, especially when there was no clear case of reference.

She adjourned the matter until November 26 for the hearing of all pending applications.