Fraud trial: Judge exposes Victor Giwa’s bid to meet him privately

By Edith Nwapi / News Agency of Nigeria

A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Apo on Monday exposed an alleged attempt by Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, who is facing fraud-related charges, to hold a private meeting with the presiding judge while his case was pending.

The disclosure came as the absence of Giwa’s lead counsel, Ibrahim Idris, SAN, stalled proceedings in the ongoing trial involving Giwa and a second defendant, Ibitade Bukola.

Giwa and Bukola are standing trial on charges 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 a criminal charge earlier filed against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama.

At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, T. Y. Silas, announced his appearance for the Inspector-General of Police.

Giwa informed the court that his lead counsel was recuperating from prostate surgery, while the second defendant, Bukola, was represented by Ogbu Aboje.

Justice Onwuegbuzie drew attention to Giwa’s alleged attempt to arrange a private meeting with him in chambers before the case was called.

In response, Giwa told the court that he had merely suggested a meeting involving the prosecution counsel and counsel to the second defendant, in the presence of the court registrar.

He described the proposal as “a matter of professional courtesy and ethical practice.”

However, Justice Onwuegbuzie questioned the propriety of such an action, asking whether it was acceptable for a defendant to seek a private audience with a judge while his case was still before the court.

Giwa subsequently admitted that such a practice was improper.

Confirming the incident, prosecution counsel Silas told the court that Giwa had indeed approached him regarding the proposed meeting.

He added that he declined the request after Giwa failed to disclose the purpose of the meeting.

Silas described the attempt as unethical, stressing that it was inappropriate for a defendant to seek a private meeting with a trial judge ahead of proceedings.

On Giwa’s application for an adjournment, Silas argued that the hearing date had been fixed at the instance of the first defendant.

He referred to a letter dated Dec. 10, 2025, in which Giwa’s counsel requested hearing dates in January.

Silas also relied on Section 396(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, noting that the law limits the number of adjournments after arraignment.

He further listed several adjournments allegedly caused by the first defendant and urged the court to award costs against Giwa for wasting judicial time if an adjournment was granted under Section 396(6) of the ACJA.

Silas argued that the absence of defence counsel was unjustified, particularly as a Senior Advocate was expected to have junior counsel available to represent him.

In his response, Giwa invoked Section 36(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), insisting on his right to counsel of his choice and rejecting the suggestion that another lawyer could represent him.

He described the request for costs as “mischievous” and maintained that he had not personally benefited from the adjournments.

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

Justice Onwuegbuzie expressed displeasure at the conduct of the defence, noting that the lead counsel to the first defendant ought to have junior counsel available to represent him in his absence.

The judge described the explanations offered as unsatisfactory but said the court would “bend backwards” in the interest of justice.

“Although the court finds no compelling reason for an adjournment, it nevertheless grants one to ‘fulfil all righteousness,’” he said.

Justice Onwuegbuzie also observed that the first defendant had previously appeared in court with a Senior Advocate and several other lawyers but was unrepresented on the day.

The matter was subsequently adjourned until Jan. 21 for continuation of hearing.