Absence Of Prosecution Witness Stall Proceeding On Charges Against PTD Drivers
By Onyilo Okai, Abuja
A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) , high court on Monday adjourned until March 12 for continuation of hearing in alleged attempted murder preferred against 20 Petroleum tanker drivers (PTD).
In the suit, marked: FCT/HC/CR/042/2023, a one-time PTD National Chairman, Lucky Osesua, is charged alongside 19 others on a five-count charge bordering on attempted murder, breach of peace and assault.
The defendants were alleged to have attacked Akporeha; Afolabi and Egbon, thus acting in a manner likely to cause their death, among others offences.
Also charged with Osesua are Dayyabu Garga; Humble Obinna; Akinolu Olabisi; Godwin Nwaka; Tiamiu Sikiru; Abdulmimin Shaibu and John Amajuoyi. Others are Zaira Aregbo; Patrick Erhivwor; Stephen Ogheneruemu; Gift Ukponku and Sunday Ezeocha and seven others.
They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges. Justice Yusuf Halilu, gave the adjournment after the prosecution counsel,A R Tahir told the court that the prosecution second (PW2) was not in court due to his flight delay.
Halilu however, adjourned the matter until March 12 for continuation of hearing. At resumed the hearing, PW2 was not in court and the prosecution (Tahir) told the that PW2 is unavoidably absent .
The counsel told the court that his (defendant) flight was delayed due to bad weather that he travelled abroad.
“We apologise for the inconvenience. To show our seriousness we will be asking for 2 clear dates” Tahir prayed the court. Christopher Oshimorgi SAN, counsel for the defendants did not object.”
In the circumstance, we will not be opposing to the adjournment. The 20th defendant was in court also but in clutches to defend his absence at the last sitting. At the sitting on Nov 20 Oshimorgi, told the court that the 20th defendant, Adamu Ibrahim took ill.
The prosecution frowned against it but the judge held that as gamie as the argument of the prosecution counsel may be, that it is honourable to grant the application for adjournment.
“It is instructive to note that the application for adjournment through the medical reports presented by senior advocate of Nigeria for the defendants which has been vehemently opposed to by learned counsel for the prosecution. “
His arguments touches on the source of the medical reports whichl did not emanate from a recognised government hospital as an issue .
“If you fall sick it is your decision to attend either government hospital or medical hospital or private hospital.
“If indeed you have been arraigned before a court of law and admitted to bail you should bring a report from a government recognised hospital” he held.
The judge noted that this was the first time such a medical situation would present itself before him with respect to the said defendant.
“Adamu has always been punctual here and this is the first time he will be absent on grounds of ill health.
“Being a court of justice even if aspersion is cast on the set medical report I should as a matter of responsibility give him the benefit of the doubt in doing that.
“It is only honourable to get him to return back to this court as soon as possible this I shall do by adjourning this matter to yet another date” he held.
He then adjourned until Jan. 27, 2025 for definite continuation of hearing. At the resumed hearing of the matter, Oshimorgi (defendants counsel)presented to the court a medical report from the 20th defendant , Adamu Ibrahim.
He told the court that though, they are ready to proceed with the matter but an impossibility is created and they can do nothing than to ask for an adjournment.
He further told the court that the prosecution served him now with notice of additional witness.
The counsel urged the court to grant them an adjournment. Objecting to the application, the prosecution counsel, David Kaswe vehemently opposed to that.
He told the court that the report was not from a government recognised hospital on the face value of the medical report.
The counsel said he saw this as a delibrate ploy to stall the definite hearing of the matter.
He urged the court for a cost against the defendant or revoke of his bail, if the court decides to grant the application.
