Forgery Case: Court Strikes Out Six Motions Filed by Abuja Lawyer Victor Giwa Over Alleged Delay Tactics

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Apo, Abuja, has struck out six separate motions filed by Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, in his ongoing criminal trial bordering on alleged forgery and impersonation. The ruling was delivered on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, by the trial judge, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, who held that the applications were improperly pursued and formed part of a pattern aimed at frustrating the progress of the case.

Justice Onwuegbuzie struck out the motions, marked M/7057/25, M/12210/25, M/14379/25, M/15452/25, M/16530/25, and M/16695/25, including one seeking his recusal from the matter. The court’s decision followed Giwa’s refusal to move the motions despite several earlier adjournments granted specifically for that purpose.

Giwa is standing trial alongside a co-defendant, Bukola, on allegations of forging official documents and impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Awa Kalu. The prosecution alleges that the forged documents were used to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge pending against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama. The charges are said to involve serious breaches of criminal law, including deception of public authorities.

At the resumed proceedings on Wednesday, Giwa informed the court that he had written multiple petitions against the trial judge to the Chief Judge of the FCT, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), and the National Judicial Council (NJC). He argued that until those petitions were investigated and determined, the court lacked the moral authority to continue hearing the case. On that basis, he urged the court to adjourn the matter sine die.

The prosecuting counsel, T. Y. Silas, appeared for the Inspector-General of Police, while the second defendant was represented by Ogbu Aboje. Levi E. Nwonye held a watching brief for the nominal complainant. Counsel to the first defendant, Ibrahim Idris, SAN, was absent, prompting Giwa to conduct his defence in person.

Silas informed the court that the case had previously been adjourned to enable the first defendant secure legal representation and to allow all pending motions—both from the prosecution and the defence—to be heard. He stated that the prosecution was fully prepared to proceed with its applications and the substantive trial.

Giwa, however, objected to the hearing of any motion, insisting that he could not obtain justice before Justice Onwuegbuzie due to alleged bias. Relying on Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), he argued that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. He further alleged that a letter he addressed to the court on January 19, 2026, was rejected by the court registrar, reinforcing his claim of prejudice.

In response, the prosecuting counsel opposed Giwa’s objection, relying on Sections 98(2) and 306(c) of the ACJA, 2015. Silas reminded the court that the prosecution had already opened its case on October 30, 2025, with the testimony of its first witness, PW1. He argued that petitions written to the Chief Judge or the NJC do not automatically operate as a stay of criminal proceedings and described Giwa’s conduct as a deliberate attempt to delay the trial.

Citing judicial authorities such as Okeke v. State and Tiput v. Dawamkat, Silas urged the court to dismiss the applications, stressing that litigation must come to an end in the interest of justice. Counsel to the second defendant aligned with Giwa’s submissions and supported the application for the judge’s recusal.

In his reply, Giwa challenged the prosecution’s reliance on Section 98(2) of the ACJA, arguing that calling a single witness did not amount to properly opening the prosecution’s case. He again urged the court to suspend proceedings pending investigations into his petitions by the Chief Judge and the NJC.

Delivering a bench ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie agreed with the prosecution, holding that petitions to judicial authorities do not, by themselves, stay criminal proceedings. The court found that Giwa’s refusal to move his own motions amounted to disobedience of court orders and revealed a consistent pattern of conduct aimed at frustrating and delaying the trial.

Consequently, the court struck out all six motions filed by the first defendant and adjourned the matter to January 26, 2026. The new date was brought forward from January 28 following Giwa’s disclosure that he would be appearing before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) on that day.