Court fixes March 20 for ruling on stay of proceedings

Justice Adebukola Banjoko of FCT High Court Gudu, Abuja, has fixed March 20 for ruling on the motion for further stay of proceedings in the trial of Sen. Joshua Dariye, former governor of Plateau.

The motion was filed on March 15, pending the hearing and determination of the appeals filed by Mr Garba Pwul, Counsel to the defendant, at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

In the application signed by Pwul, the defendant stated four reasons for filing the motion, namely: “That the applicant has lost confidence in the court to try him and has challenged, in the Court of Appeal, the insistence of the Court to try him.

“The applicant’s constitutional right to fair hearing will be breached, if the Court continues with the hearing in the case.

“The judgment of the Court of Appeal will be rendered nugatory, in the event of success, if the court forges ahead with the trial.

“In the circumstance of the appeal filed by the applicant, it is in the best interest of justice for the Court to grant the application.’’

Pwul, in an unexpected twist of events, prayed the court to grant him leave to withdraw from the case.

“Considering my duty to the court, my duty to my client and my conviction, I have come to the summation that I wish to withdraw,” he said.

The EFCC prosecuting Counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), objected to the defence Counsel’s prayer for withdrawal, citing relevant sections of the constitution and other cases.

“The application of my learned brother is inapplicable; he has to comply with the law to avoid rendering the Court helpless.

“Where a law practitioner intends to disengage from a matter, he has to notify the court no more than three days,’’ Jacobs said.

ALSO READ: Dariye, Jang dump PDP for APC

Justice Banjoko acquiesced to Jacob’s objection and ordered Pwul to put his prayer to the Court on notice for three days.

On the last adjourned date, the Judge had dismissed an earlier motion filed by Dariye for her to disqualify herself from further hearing in the trial.

She had held that the allegations of “obscure and disguised bias” against her lacked merit.

She also held that since the beginning of the trial, she had maintained her judicial oath to all parties.