Tag: Court

 

 

Two convicted drug traffickers; Chibunna Umeibe and Emeka Ezenwanne, on Monday, narrated how the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA)’s officers allegedly aided them to beat security checks at Enugu International Airport before their arrest by the Police Intelligence Response Team (IRT).

The duo, who had since served their two-year jail term, told Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja in a video evidence played in the open court at the instance of the DCP Abba Kyari, former head of IRT, and his co-defendants.

Justice Nwite had, on Feb. 27, admitted the video recording of the confessional statements by the two drug traffickers tendered by the Nigeria Police through Insp El-John Nwoke, the 2nd defence witness (DW-2), in the ongoing trial of Kyari and four police officers.

Other defendants include ACP Sunday J. Ubua, ASP Bawa James, Insp Simon Agirgba and Insp John Nuhu, who were all officers of the Police IRT.

Nwoke, while testifying, on Jan. 28, had told the court that Umeibe and Ezenwanne, after their arrest by the IRT officers, confessed to the police investigating team how NDLEA operatives allegedly shielded them at the airport on Jan. 19, 2022, before the police arrested them.

The witness said that a video recording of the interview session was downloaded in a DVD.

However, when Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, had sought to tender the video recording as evidence in the case, the NDLEA’s lawyer, Joseph Sunday, objected and after a prolonged argument, the judge fixed Feb. 27 for a ruling.

Following the ruling of Justice Nwite admitting the video recording in evidence and marking it as “Exhibit D-3,” Abdul Mohammed, SAN, who appeared for Kyari on Monday, applied that the video recording, tendered through the DW-2, who is a subpeaned witness, be played in open court.

“We apply to play that CD before this honourable court so as to demonstrate the defendants’ case before this court, ” he said.

The senior lawyer told the court that the video recording was about 27 minutes and two seconds long.

He said the two convicted drug traffickers were the ones who testified as 6th and 7th prosecution witnesses in the case.

Responding, the prosecuting lawyer did not raise an objection to Mohammed’s application and the judge directed that the video recording be played.

Umeibe and Ezenwanne, while being interrogated by the police team, were seeing, standing and responding to questions put across to them.

“Whatever you say in this video shall be tenderd as evidence against you in any court of law,” one of the interviewers had said.

Umeibe, who said he was 29 years old at the time, told the police investigating team how he was lured into trafficking of hard drugs by a friend called Bassey.

He said he got into the illicit business due financial problem.

He confessed that the police arrested him with the cocaine at the Enugu International Airport.

Whne he was asked if he actually trafficked the cocaine, Umeibe responded in the affirmative.

He said he bought the substance from addiss Abbaba in Ethiopia into the country.

When he was asked if it is lawful or unlawful to trafficked cocaine, he said, “it is unlawful. ”

Umeibe, who said he benefitted N500, 000 from the first trip in 2021, said this was the second time he would be engaging in the business.

He explained how the substance is packaged before embarking on the journey.

When he was asked the actual quantity of the substance he trafficked, he said he did not know what it was.

when asked who usually collected the drugs from them, he said: “We don’t know who will collect the drugs.

“After we leave the airport, we will enter the night bus to Lagos and call the person we will hand over the drugs to.”

He said he was expected to also benefit the sum of N500, 000 from the instant trip.

When asked who would deliver the money to him, he said it was the person they would call as soon as they reached Lagos State.

He explained how transactions running into billions of naira sighted on his phone with samples of susbtance suspected to be cocaine, were carried out.

Ezenwanne, who said he was 45 years old at the time, said he holds a secondary school certificate.

He confirmed that the police arrested him at the Enugu International Airport with cocaine.

He said though he had travelled up to four times, this was the second time he would be trafficking cocaine.

“The other times, I came back without any cocaine, ” he said.

He said he was into clothing business before he went into cocaine trafficking.

Ezenwanne also said he was lured into the drug trafficking through his friends who are Brazilian based.

He said after he was given the substance, he was told that someone would called him as soon as he got to Lagos.

“I got to Nigeria, I entered night bus to Lagos and I called the man at Ago bridge where he came to give me my money.

” I used the money to pay some of the debts I was owning and used tyevrestvto take care of my family.

Ezenwanne, who said he does not take cocaine, said trafficking it is illegal and that it is not good to human health.

On how they beat security checks at the airport, he said: “At first, while I accept this is because of the situation of things for me.”

He said when he is given the substance, his photograph would be taken and be used to process his easy access at the airport.

“My picture will be sent to the NDLEA (officers) at the airport by the person that sent me this thing (cocaine).

“After I snapped the picture, I will give it to the person that gave me this stuff. He is the one that will use it for other things which I don’t know.

“But for me, I think it is for the NDLEA,” he said.

Also speaking on how they usually have easy access into the country, Umeibe said: “If we want to move from Addis Abbaba, we will snap pictures and send to the person that sent us.

“The person will now send it to NDLEA (officers). So when we get to the airport, they wiill now know us and clear us, ” he also said.

When asked if the officers at the airport don’t normally search them, Umeibe said : “They will open the bag and cover it again.”

When he was asked if they usuly search them properly or not, he said: “Not properly.”

Umeibe said the anti-narcotic officers at the airport already knew they were coming, hence, there would be no thorough checks on their lugagge.

After the video recording ended, the defence lawyer sought an adjournment to enable them to crosscheck their transcript with what they had before they continue to continue examine the the witness.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until April April 20 and 21 for continuation of trial.

 

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

(1). *INTRODUCTION

A recent report published by The Nigeria Lawyer attributed to a distinguished Senior Advocate of Nigeria, *Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN,* the view that courts ought not to entertain disputes relating to the internal affairs of political parties. According to the report, the learned Silk was quoted as suggesting that judges who assume jurisdiction over such matters should face disciplinary action, and that the National Judicial Council (NJC) should “wield the big stick” against them. The position appears to be predicated on the belief that internal political disputes should be resolved within the political arena rather than through judicial processes. The report further suggests that political actors, particularly within the opposition, sometimes resort to litigation and media engagement instead of developing internal mechanisms to address their political disagreements and organisational challenges.
While this perspective reflects an important concern about the autonomy of political parties and the proper limits of judicial intervention in political questions, it raises significant constitutional and jurisprudential issues regarding the role of courts in safeguarding the rule of law where disputes arise within political parties. It is against this background that the present rejoinder respectfully seeks to clarify the circumstances under which courts may properly intervene in the internal affairs of political parties within Nigeria’s constitutional and statutory framework.

(2). *THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL PARTY AFFAIRS*

It is well settled that courts generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties. Political parties are regarded as voluntary associations that regulate their internal management through their constitutions, rules, and procedures. Matters relating purely to internal political strategy, political negotiations, alliances, or decisions about whom a party may politically prefer are ordinarily considered non-justiciable political questions. Consequently, courts have consistently maintained that they will not run the affairs of political parties or substitute their own decisions for those of party organs. However, this principle of judicial restraint is not absolute. Where legal rights created by the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or the constitution and rules of a political party are alleged to have been violated, courts may exercise jurisdiction in order to interpret the law, protect legal rights, and ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.

(3). *Situations Where Courts May Intervene*

Judicial intervention in internal party matters may arise in limited and clearly defined circumstances recognised under Nigerian constitutional and electoral law.

(i). Pre-Election Matters: Courts may intervene where the dispute qualifies as a pre-election matter under Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. A dispute becomes a pre-election matter where it relates to the nomination of candidates by a political party, the conduct of party primaries, or the qualification or disqualification of a candidate. In such circumstances, an aspirant who participated in the primary election may approach the court to challenge the process where it is alleged that the party acted in violation of the law or its own guidelines. Also, the Electoral Act 2022 allows an aspirant who participated in a primary election to challenge the process where it contravenes the provisions of the Act or the party guidelines.

(ii). *Breach of the Party Constitution or Rules:* Although political parties are autonomous bodies, they are nevertheless bound by their own constitutions and internal regulations. Where a party acts outside its constitution or breaches its own rules and guidelines in a manner that affects the legal rights of its members or aspirants, courts may intervene to enforce compliance with those governing rules.

(iii). *Violation of Fundamental Rights:* Judicial intervention may also arise where the internal actions of a political party result in the violation of constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to fair hearing or other legally enforceable rights recognised under the Constitution.

(iv). *Fraud, Illegality, or Breach of Law:* Courts may intervene where party officials act fraudulently, where there is manifest illegality, or where internal party processes violate statutory provisions. Internal party autonomy cannot serve as a shield for unlawful conduct.

(v). *Matters Affecting the Electoral Process:* Where internal party decisions have consequences for the electoral process regulated by law, such disputes may transcend purely domestic party matters and become issues of legal significance warranting judicial determination. Examples include disputes arising from the conduct of party primaries, the nomination of candidates, or the submission of candidates to INEC.

(3). *THE COURTS DO NOT MANAGE POLITICAL PARTIES*

Despite these recognised exceptions, Nigerian courts have consistently emphasised that they do not manage political parties. Courts do not determine who a party should politically adopt, nor do they decide internal political negotiations, alliances, or strategies. Such matters remain within the exclusive domain of party organs. Judicial intervention occurs only where the dispute raises issues of legal rights, statutory compliance, or constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in *Ishaku v. Audi & Ors*(2026), where the Court clarified that although courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, judicial intervention may be justified where the dispute transcends domestic party management and involves legal rights arising from party primaries or statutory compliance. [See: *”FCT poll: Supreme Court affirms Joshua Ishaku as APC candidate”* (Punch; 17 February 2026)]. While emphasizing that the dispute transcended internal party matters, as it involved an infraction of constitutional rights, the Electoral Act, and the party’s guidelines, the apex court said that each case must be analysed based on its peculiar facts. This reinforces the established judicial position that while courts generally respect the autonomy of political parties, they may intervene where disputes involve legally enforceable rights or statutory compliance.

(4). *CONCLUSION*

Against this legal background, the suggestion that courts should never entertain disputes relating to internal party affairs, or that judges who do so should face disciplinary sanctions, may not fully reflect the nuanced position of Nigerian constitutional law. The correct principle, with respect, is that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties. However, where disputes involve violations of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or legally enforceable rights created by party rules, courts retain jurisdiction to ensure that the rule of law prevails. A political party, with the greatest respect, is not a law unto itself. Like all institutions operating within the Nigerian constitutional order, it remains subject to the supremacy of the Constitution, the authority of statutory law, and compliance with its own governing rules. Judicial intervention in such circumstances therefore does not amount to running the affairs of political parties; rather, it represents an essential mechanism for preserving legality, protecting rights, and upholding the rule of law within the democratic process.

(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.)

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused to grant an application filed by Yakubu Adamu, Commissioner for Finance, Bauchi State, seeking to travel to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, on a pilgrimage.

Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on Monday, held that Adamu, who is facing an alleged N4.6 billion money laundering charge, failed to place sufficient materials before the court to warrant the grant of the application.

Justiice Nwite also agreed with the objection raised by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that Adamu’s affidavit attached to the application was defective since it was not signed by the applicant himself.

According to the judge, an unsigned document does not have any probative value in law, hence, the document failed to meet the minimum legal procedure.

He said though he was not unminful of the fundamental rights of the applicant in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, among others, the judge said such rights are not absolute.

Justice Nwite said a previous case of Ibori cited by Adamu was inapplicable in the instant case since Ibori’s application was hinged on medical ground.

Adamu had, in the motion on nothce marked; FHC/ABJ/CR/694/2025, sought two reliefs.

He sought an order directing the release of his international passport to enable him travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage.

He also sought an order granting him leave to travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage.

In the affidavit in support of the motion deposed to by Emmanuel Tsebo, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Chris Uche, SAN & Co, Adamu said he was arraigned on allegations of misappropriation of funds and admitted to bail by the court.

He said the court ordered him to deposit his international passport to the deputy chief registrar of the court for safe custody.

He, however, told the court that he had an urgent need to attend pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia and return to Nigeria on March 21.

Adamu said his performance of Hajj is a highly recommended rite for Muslim faithfuls and forms an integral part of his religious practice.

He undertook to return the travel documents to the registry of the court on or before March 22 and to be in court to attend his trial.

The Bauchi commissioner, who said the grant of the application would not prejudice the prosecution, prayed the court to grant his request in the interest of justice.

Justice Nwite had, Jan. 2, admitted Adamu to a N500 million bail with two sureties in like sum.

He ordered that Adamu should be remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre pending the perfection of his bail conditions.

The EFCC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/694/2025, named Adamu, who is a former manager of a branch of Polaris Bank Plc in Bauchi State, and a firm, Ayab Agro Products and Freight Company Ltd, as 1st and 2nd defendants in the money laundering case involving about N4.6 billion.

The charge is dated and filed on Dec. 19, 2025, by EFCC’s lawyer, Samuel Chime of the Legal and Prosecution Department.

They were alleged to have facilitated and agreed to the conversion, transfer, concealment and use of funds in the sum of about N4,650,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Six Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) availed by Polaris Bank under the guise of financing the supply of motorcycles to Bauchi State Governmeni through Emmanuel Asomugha General Enterprises.

“The motorcycles were not supplied, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 21(a) and punishable under Section 21 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022,” the count read in part.

Count six accused Adamu, Aliyu and Duguri of retaining and causing the transfer of proceeds of an unlawful act to nominees and third parties, by causing parts of the funds connected with the Polaris Bank facility to be paid and circulated through third-party accounts sometime in 2023.

It further alleged that the transfer included the one made through I.S. Makayye Investment Resources Ltd and the transfer of #165, 900,000.00 to Ayab Agro Products and Freight Company Ltd.

The funds were said to formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act.

The offence is contrary to Section 20(a) and punishable under Section 20 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, among other counts.

The defendants were arraigned on Dec. 30, 2025, but pleaded not guilty to the six-count charge.

Adamu and three other co-defendants, who are Bauchi State’s workers, are also facing another criminal charge bordering on alleged terrorism financing to the tune of $9.7 million before Justice Umar.

Justice Umar had, on Feb. 26, adjourned the case sine die (indefinately), following a petition by the EFCC that sought the transfer of the matter from the judge.

The anti-graft agency, in a petition to the chief judge, expressed discomfort with the handling of the matter and requesting that the case be transferred to another court.

 

 

 

The Chief Judge of Federal High Court (FHC), Justice John Tsoho, says he is ready to appear before the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) for investigatiin over alleged failure to declare some bank accounts in his asset declaration form.

Justice Tsoho, in a statement by the FHC’s Director of Information, Dr Catherine Christopher, on Monday, said he would honour the invitation as soon as his lawyer, Kanu Agabi, SAN, is done with his medical treatment abroad.

“The Federal High Court of Nigeria wishes to clarify that the Honourable Chief Judge, Hon. Justice John Terhemba Tsoho, remains fully committed to cooperating with the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in respect of its invitation.

“In accordance with his constitutional right to consult and be represented by counsel of his choice, his legal representative, Kanu Godwin Agabi, CON, SAN has indicated his readiness to accompany the Honourable Chief Judge to the Bureau upon his return to Nigeria, he being presently outside the country for medical reasons.”

According to Christopher, this position has been duly communicated to the Code of Conduct Bureau, affirming the Chief Judge’s willingness to appear and participate in the process in full compliance with the law and established constitutional safeguards.

“For scheduling purposes, the Bureau has been informed that any date within the week commencing Monday, 16 March 2026, is convenient for the Honourable Chief Judge and his counsel.

“The Hon. Chief Judge reiterates his commitment to due process, transparency, and respect for the rule of law,” the statement concludec.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that the CCB was reported to have summoned the CJ, following an investigation by PREMIUM TIMES that Justice Tsoho “failed to declare several bank accounts in his asset declaration form, in violation of the country’s Code of Conduct law. “

 

I agree entirely with President Tinubu’s position that he should not be blamed for the recent wave of defections into the APC. Come to think about it.

Did the President compel anyone to join his party? Did he coerce governors or legislators to abandon their platforms? Clearly, no. The President himself declared during an interfaith Iftar with senators at the Presidential Villa in Abuja on 27 February 2026 that “…they accused me of killing the opposition, but didn’t have a gun,” implying that he did not force or hold anyone at gunpoint to defect to his own political party.

Governors and lawmakers are not political minors. They are experienced public office holders, elected into office by the people and fully empowered by law to make political decisions. If they conclude, rightly or wrongly, that aligning with the ruling party serves their interests or those of their states, that is a choice for which they must bear responsibility.

Nigeria may indeed be passing through difficult times, but attributing the phenomenon of cross-carpeting to one individual speaks to a far deeper institutional problem. The real problem lies not in politics, but in law, specifically, in how the Nigerian legal profession has interpreted constitutional provisions on defection.

*Judicial Interpretation, Not Presidential Influence, Enables Indiscriminate Defections*

1. At one point, Hon. Justice Inyang Ekwo delivered what many regarded as a bold and principled decision: that a governor who defects from the political party under whose platform he was elected ought to vacate his office. That reasoning aligned with the spirit of political accountability and party discipline, giving hope that Nigerian democracy might begin to mature ideologically rather than function as a marketplace of convenience. However, that decision did not stand. The Supreme Court set it aside, holding that governors and their deputies do not lose their offices upon defection in the same way legislators might. That interpretation fundamentally altered the landscape of political responsibility.

2. Even with respect to legislators (where the Constitution appears stricter), the expected sanctions have rarely materialised. Why? Because, in the Rivers State line of cases, as an example, the Supreme Court introduced an additional threshold: *that defection is not complete until the lawmaker’s name appears on the membership register of the new party.* This requirement is not expressly found in the Constitution, yet it has become the operational test. The practical effect has been profound. It created a legal grey zone wide enough for political actors to manoeuvre freely, defect strategically, and avoid constitutional consequences.

It’s accordingly seen that political actors behave according to the incentives and restraints established by law. Where the law is firm, discipline emerges. Where it is elastic, opportunism flourishes.

Nigeria’s current culture of defections did not arise in a vacuum. It grew out of judicial doctrines that diluted the constitutional intention of preserving electoral mandates and party accountability. In other words, the legal environment has made defections low-risk and high-reward.

*The Blame Lies Squarely With The Legal Profession*

This brings us to the often-overlooked role of the legal profession in shaping democratic culture. Lawyers do not merely espouse rules; they shape governance outcomes. Courts do not only settle disputes; they define the moral architecture of political conduct. Through advocacy, interpretation, and adjudication, members of the legal profession serve as the guardians of constitutional discipline. Where that guardianship is assertive, politics becomes structured and principled. Where it is hesitant or overly technical, politics becomes transactional. By prioritising narrow legal formalism over constitutional purpose, the members of the legal profession established a legal system that inadvertently signalled to political actors that party loyalty is optional and electoral mandates are transferable commodities.

*Democracy Requires Normative Guidance, Not Just Legal Technicalities*

A developing democracy such as Nigeria’s, requires jurisprudence that strengthens institutions, not merely resolves disputes. Courts are expected to interpret the Constitution in a manner that advances stability, accountability, discipline, and the sanctity of the ballot, not one that unintentionally rewards political fluidity. When legal interpretation weakens consequences, political behaviour adjusts accordingly. Hence, if defections are now widespread, the explanation lies not in presidential influence but in the permissive legal architecture that governs political mobility. Politicians operate within the boundaries the law allows. The law, in turn, is shaped by lawyers and judges. Therefore, the conversation must shift from personalities to institutions.
Blaming one political leader for a structurally enabled phenomenon distracts from the deeper reform Nigeria urgently needs: *a jurisprudence that restores discipline, fidelity to mandates, and respect for the electoral platform through which power is obtained.*

Nigeria’s democratic future will not be secured merely by changing leaders. It will be secured when members of the legal profession consciously embrace their role as architects of political responsibility and constitutional order.

(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems).
08109024556.
udemsyl@gmail.com
(28 February 2026)

 

Halima Buba, the Managing Director (MD), SunTrust Bank Ltd, on Thursday, sought an order permitting her to travel to the United States (US) for medical treatment in relation to pregnancy complications.

Buba, who is currently facing a six -count money laundering charge, told Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja through her counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the bank MD, alongside her Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer, Innocent Mbagwu, are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over alleged 12 million dollar fraud.

They were arraigned on July 13, 2025 and admitted to N100 million bail each with one surety each in the like sum.

Justice Nwite also ordered that their international passports be deposited with the court registry.

However, Buba, who was also in court on Thursday, in the motion on notice, dated Feb. 2 but filed on Feb. 3 by Usman marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/180/2025, sought three orders.

She prayed the court for an order varying the conditions of bail granted to her on June 13, 2025.

She also sought an order releasing her international passport to enable her travel out of Nigeria for her medical treatment and for such other medical follow ups.

Buba equally sought an order directing the chief/deputy chief registrar for the temporary release of her travel documents to enable her travel out for the medical treatment.

Giving seven grounds why her application should be granted, Buba said since she was admitted to bail, she has never abused it and she had always attended court sittings.

The MD, who said she needed the leave of the court to travel abroad for medical treatment, said the treatment required her urgent attention and she would complete same and return the document before the next adjourned date.

In the affidavit in support of the motion, Buba said she needed the permission to travel on Feb. 15 and return back by February ending.

“That I am pregnant and the pregnancy has some complications that requires an expert in the field.

“That I registered my ante-natal medicals with Deda Hospital, Jahi Abuja.

“”That upon being examined by the Chief Medical Officer of Deda, there is a discovery of some complications and referred my medical situation to Bridge Clinics, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist at Indiana University Health, Carmel, Indiana, United States of America,” she said.

She said she had been scheduled for urgent medical treatment in the US.

According to her, I am ready and willing to be in court on any date this honourable court deems appropriate to adjourn the charge for continuation of hearing having regards to this application.

Buba, who undertook to return to the country after the treatment, said she would not jump bail if the application is granted.

She, therefore, urged the court to grant her request in the interest of justice.

But the EFCC’s lawyer, Ogechi Ujam, vehemently opposed the application after Buba’s counsel moved the motion.

Ujam told the court that a counter affidavit was filed on Feb. 3, praying the court to refuse the application.

She stated that all the depositions by Buba were false, speculative and misleading.

The lawyer submitted that contrary to Paragraph 10 of Buba’s affidavit, the date proposed by her to travel had been overtaken by event.

She said contrary to the MD’s averment in her Exhibit B which purports to be a medical report, the consultant did not express his inability to treat her.

She argued that Buba did not submit herself to the treatment of the hospital in Exhibit C and the hospital could not have confirmed her current medical status to necessitate her recommendation to travelling outside of Nigeria.

The lawyer argued that contrary to her application, there was nothing to show that the Nigerian doctors or the Nigeria healthcare system is incapable of treating or managing her pregnancy and health care needs.

Ujam said the bank MD did not explore the Nigerian health care system and there is nothing to show that any other Nigerian doctor at any Nigerian Hospital have advised her to see a foreign doctor or travel for treatment.

According to her, there is no medical appointment scheduled for the 1st defendant/applicant by the proposed hospital for any treatment procedure.

Ujam stated that she was informed by Mr Ahmad Yahaya, one of the medical doctors serving in the EFCC and which she verily believed that Buba can be effectively treated by other hospitals in Nigeria.

She reminded the court that trial had progressed in the case with the prosecution calling three witnesses who had given very serious incriminating evidence against Buba.

She said, in the counter affidavit, that the offences for which Buba is facing trial are serious as they border on money laundering and having called three witnesses, there is higher incentive capable of tempting the defendant to evade trial or even relocate from the country beyond the reach of the court.

“That it is a fact in the public space that it has become a trend that in criminal high profile cases, defendants always bring up medical reasons to travel outside the country to avoid standing trial,” she said.

Ujam said Buba had not put forward any material to show that her said medical condition cannot be treated in Nigeria.

The lawyer, therefore, urged the court to refuse Buba’s application.

After listening to the lawyers, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until March 4 for ruling.