A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has fixed February 4 for the case filed by the Nigeria Police against two lawyers, Victor Giwa ans Bulola Ibitade.
The police had accused Giwa of forging letterhead paper of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Awa Kalu.
But Awa Kalu, in a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Mr Kayode. Egebtolun, put a lie to the allegation of the police against Ibitade amd Giwa.
Despite the letter of Prof. Awa Kalu to the Inspector-General of Police, formally distancing himself from the allegation of forgery and impersonation against Giwa and Ibitade, the police have gone ahead to press charge against Giwa.
Chief Kalu, in a letter to the Inspector-General of Police, Mr Kayode Egbetokun, had said his letterhead was never forged and that he had not at anytime lodged any complaint to the police about forgery of his document.
Professor Kalu, in a letter dated May 30, 2025, addressed to the Inspector General of Police, clarified that he neither filed a complaint nor reported Mr. Giwa for allegedly forging his firm’s letterhead.
During the proceedings, Monday, Prosecution Counsel, Theophilous Silas, sought to move a motion to revoke Giwa’s bail, saying it was the business of the day.
He sought the nod of the court to proceed to move the motion.
But Giwa’s Counsel, Mr Farooq Akanbi, from the Chambers of Ahmed Raji, SAN, stood up and objected, saying he has just been briefed and will need time to go through the files amd the motions filed so far in the case.
He told the court that his firm had been briefed only the previous day, explaining that Ahmed Raji, SAN, had intended to personally handle the case but was unavailable due to another engagement.
He prayed the court for a short adjournment to enable him prepare for the case.
At the last adjourns date, Giwa appeared for himself as Counsel in the matter but before yesterday’s proceedings, he decided to hire a Counsel to appear for him.
Counsel for the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, countered the argument by the prosecution saying that the seven adjournment was not at the instance of the defendants.
He urged the court to be guided by its records but appealed for restraint.
He disclosed that he had personally contacted Ahmed Raji, SAN, who confirmed that he had been briefed just a day earlier and intended to take over the case.
Aboje also informed the court of a pending application by the first defendant seeking to relist an earlier motion that had been struck out, urging the court to hear it in the interest of justice. He added that the second defendant did not oppose a short adjournment.
