The FCT High Court, Maitama Division, on Wednesday struck out a motion filed by a lawyer, Victor Giwa, seeking the recusal of Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie.

The judge also struck out Mr Giwa’s motion alleging disobedience of court orders, holding that the application was incompetent and an attempt to frustrate the trial.

The prosecution counsel, Theophilus Silas, had asked the court to strike out Mr Giwa’s six motions.

Mr Giwa and a co-defendant are standing trial for forging official documents and impersonating a senior advocate, Awa Kalu,  to mislead the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge filed against Mr Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama.

At the resumed proceedings on Wednesday, Mr Silas told the court that the business of the day was to move various motions by parties.

Giwa represented himself in the absence of his counsel. The second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje.

Mr Silas informed the court that at the last adjourned date, the matter was stood down to enable the first defendant to engage counsel so that all pending motions by both the prosecution and the defence could be taken.

He told the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed with the hearing of the pending applications.

However, Mr Giwa objected to the hearing of any motion, arguing that he had written about three petitions to the chief judge of the FCT. He alleged bias and stated that he could not obtain justice before the court because he had lost confidence in the court.

He urged the judge to recuse himself, citing Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution on the right to fair hearing and impartiality, as well as provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

He further claimed that the court registrar declined to accept a letter he wrote to the court on January 19, 2026.

In response, the prosecution counsel opposed Mr Giwa’s application on four grounds, relying on Sections 98(2) and 306(c) of the ACJA, 2015. Mr Silas argued that the prosecution had already opened its case on October 30, 2025, when it called its first witness, PW1, Asebe Waziri.

He added that petitions to the chief judge did not automatically halt proceedings. He described Mr Giwa’s application as another attempt to delay the trial, citing authorities to urge the court to refuse the application and allow the matter to proceed.

”He was asked to move  his pending motions which his refusal to do so construct to contempt of court order. The 1st defendant has developed a penchant for going against the rulings,  warnings and orders of the court.

”Even if my lord is not minded to fine him in contempt,  I hereby apply that all his motions, including M/7057/25, M/12210/25, M/14379/25, M/15452/25,M/16530/25 and M/16695/25,″ Mr Silas urged the court.

Counsel to the second defendant aligned with Mr Giwa’s submission and urged the court to grant the recusal application.

Mr Giwa, in a further response, faulted the prosecution’s reliance on Section 98(2) of the ACJA, arguing that calling only one witness did not amount to properly opening the prosecution’s case. He urged the court to suspend proceedings pending the outcome of investigations into his petitions by the chief judge and the National Judicial Council.

In a short ruling, the judge held that petitions to the NJC or the chief judge did not, by themselves, operate to stay criminal proceedings. The judge observed that the first defendant’s conduct was consistent with a pattern aimed at obstructing the trial.

He noted that Mr Giwa’s refusal to move his own motion amounted to disobedience of court orders.

The judge also clarified that the case was initially adjourned until January 28, but the date was brought forward after Mr Giwa informed the court that he would be appearing before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee on that day.

The judge then struck out the first defendant’s motions and adjourned until January 26 for the prosecution to move its motions.

(NAN)