Victor Giwa’s attempt to recuse Justice Onwuegbuzie fails after judge declines private meeting

By Edith Nwapi/NAN

An Abuja High Court on Wednesday struck out a motion filed by Abuja-based lawyer Victor Giwa, seeking the recusal of Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie from presiding over his trial.

Justice Onwuegbuzie also struck out Giwa’s motion alleging disobedience of court orders, ruling that the application was incompetent and amounted to an attempt to frustrate the proceedings.

The ruling followed attempt by Giwa, who is facing fraud-related charges, to hold a private meeting with the presiding judge while his case was pending before the court.

At the proceedings, the prosecution counsel, Theophilus Silas, urged the court to strike out six separate motions filed by Giwa.

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

At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Silas appeared for the prosecution, while Giwa represented himself in the absence of his counsel. The second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje.

Addressing the court, Silas explained that at the previous adjourned date, the matter was stood down to allow the first defendant engage legal representation so that all pending applications by both parties could be taken together. He informed the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed with the hearing of the pending motions.

However, Giwa objected to the hearing of any application, stating that he had written three petitions to the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). He alleged bias on the part of the court and claimed he could no longer receive justice, having lost confidence in the proceedings.

Giwa urged Justice Onwuegbuzie 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 said he wrote to the court on January 19, 2026.

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

He further submitted that petitions to the Chief Judge did not automatically stay proceedings and described the recusal application as another attempt to delay the trial. He urged the court to dismiss the application and allow the case to continue.

” 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 to 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″ Silas urged court.

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

In a further response, Giwa challenged 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 investigations into his petitions by the Chief Judge and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

In a brief ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that petitions to the NJC or the Chief Judge do not, on their own, operate as a stay of criminal proceedings. The judge observed that the conduct of the first defendant reflected a consistent pattern aimed at obstructing the trial.

The court further held that Giwa’s refusal to move his own motion amounted to disobedience of court orders.

Justice Onwuegbuzie also clarified that the matter was initially adjourned to January 28, but the date was brought forward after Giwa informed the court that he would be appearing before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) on that day.

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