Proceedings in the trial of Abuja lawyer Victor Giwa and his co-defendant, Ibitade Bukola, over alleged forgery and impersonation were again stalled on Monday after an FCT High Court in Maitama granted an adjournment, despite strong objections from the prosecution.

The Inspector-General of Police is prosecuting the defendants on allegations that they forged official documents and impersonated a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr Awa Kalu, with the aim of misleading the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge against Giwa.

At the resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel, Mr Theophilus Silas, told the court that the matter was fixed for hearing of the prosecution’s motion and urged the court to proceed. He argued that all relevant processes had been exchanged, with the last filing completed on December 1, 2025.

However, counsel to the first defendant, Mr Farook Akabi, informed the court that his firm, Ahmed Raji, SAN & Co, had only been briefed the previous day and sought an adjournment to enable proper preparation.

He added that the senior advocate intended to personally handle the case but was unavailable due to another engagement.

Silas opposed the request, describing it as part of a pattern aimed at frustrating the trial. “This is the seventh date the first defendant is seeking adjournment to prevent this motion from being heard,” he told the court. “It is also the fourth time he is changing counsel strictly to delay this trial.”

He argued that the defendant had been aware of the hearing date and had previously indicated readiness to conduct his defence.

Citing Section 396(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2018, and Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Silas submitted that the defendant had exhausted the statutory limits for adjournments and had become “an obstacle to fair trial within reasonable time”.

He also relied on Supreme Court authorities, including Etsako West LGA v Christopher and Tiput v Dawankat, to contend that litigation should not be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

Counsel to the second defendant, Mr Ogbu Aboje, said he did not oppose a short adjournment, noting that he had personally confirmed that Ahmed Raji, SAN, had only recently been briefed. He also drew the court’s attention to a pending application by the first defendant seeking to relist an earlier motion that had been struck out.

In his ruling, the trial judge expressed concern over what he described as repeated attempts by the first defendant to stall proceedings.

He noted that Giwa had at different times represented himself and appeared with three Senior Advocates of Nigeria and more than 30 other counsel.

“Each time the first defendant appears, he adopts a storyline to prevent the matter from proceeding,” the judge said, adding that the court was guided by evidence rather than “theatrics”.

The judge recalled earlier warnings against delay tactics and referred to a previous claim by the first defendant that he had petitioned the Chief Judge and the National Judicial Council, noting that the NJC had since clarified that case assignment rests with the Chief Judge.

Despite these observations, the court held that an adjournment would be granted “in the interest of justice”.

The case was adjourned to February 4 for continuation of hearing.