Judge declines to recuse self, directs parties to proceed on criminal Offa robbery case involving Saraki, Ahmed, others
KEHINDE EMMANUEL, ILORIN
A Kwara State High Court in Ilorin, the state capital, presided over by Justice Osuolale- Ajayi has declined to recuse himself from the criminal case on Offa robbery involving a former Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki; former state Governor, Abdulfatah Ahmed; former Chief of Staff to Ahmed, Yusuf Abdulwahab and Ahmed’s former political aide, Alabi Olalekan.
The court in the Suit KWS/114C/2026, instead directed parties to proceed with the address on the issue raised suo motu.
- Advertisement -
The matter was the People of Kwara State Vs a former Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki; former state Governor, Abdulfatah Ahmed; former Chief of Staff to Ahmed, Yusuf Abdulwahab and Ahmed’s former political aide, Alabi Olalekan.
According to information obtained by journalists, the matter came up on Thursday, November 5, 2026 before Justice Osuolale-Ajayi for the address of the Court on the issue raised Suo-Motu – whether or not trial has commenced in the case.
Chief R. O. Balogun (SAN) led Chief Taiye Oniyinde (SAN), Prof. Adua Ismail Mustapha, Dr. S. I. Al-Mustapha (Chief State Counsel), N. A. Sulyman Esq, S. I. Shehu Esq, B. L. Abdulsalam (Assistant Chief State Counsel), H. O. Busari, Dayo Zulqarnain and M. B. AbdulKabir for the People of Kwara State as the Prosecution.
A . O. Adelodun (SAN) led K. K. Eleja (SAN), I. M. Adedo, A. T. Ahmed, Y. A. Usman, M. Y. Oganija, AbdulRasheed Abdullah and S. O. Orire and A. A. Issa for the 1st defendant.
B. R. Gold (SAN) led R. O. Bakare, A. S. Muhideen, H. W. Dikko, O. M. Usman, A. R. AbdulRahman, A. O Muhammad-Thani and I. A. Amasa for the 2nd defendant.
J. A. Mumini (SAN) with T. A. Abolade for the 3rd and 4th defendant.
Chief Balogun (SAN) informed the court that the case was for address.
B. R. Gold (SAN) told the court that the 2nd defendant has appealed the ruling of the court delivered on the 23rd October, 2026 praying the court to recuse itself on the ground of likelihood of bias.
He submitted that the record of appeal has been compiled and an application for stay of proceedings has been filed before the Court of Appeal. He further submitted that in view of the pending application before the Court of Appeal, the trial court was prayed to stay proceeding as the court of appeal is now in charge of the matter.
Adelodun (SAN) supported the position of the counsel representing the 1st defendant and further submitted that the nature of the objection and appeal are not as envisaged by the Administration of Criminal Justice Law but more extrinsic. He prayed the court to stay the proceeding pending the determination of the appeal whose subject matter is on the competence of the Judge to sit over the matter.
J. A. Mumini also associated himself with the submissions of the 1st and 2nd defendants. He further submitted that the prayers in the appeal transcends procedural irregularities which are addressed by the ACJL but bother on the reputation of the Court.
Chief Balogun (SAN) prayed the Court to dismiss the oral application for stay of proceedings under any guise as it is unknown to Nigeria’s criminal jurisprudence and that same is strange. He submitted further that by the provision of section 311 of the ACJL, the court lacks jurisdiction to even entertain such application talk more of considering same. He cited the cases of Metuh Vs FRN and Destra Investments Vs FRN.
Chief Balogun SAN submitted that trial in a criminal case can only commence when arraignment has been done, the charge read to the defendants and plea taken. He referenced the provisions of the ACJL and the practice direction made pursuant to the ACJL. He submitted further that any objections ought to be heard after the arraignment of the defendants and at the pre hearing protocol stage as provided by the ACJL directions 2025.
The 1st to 4th defendant Counsel agreed with the prosecution counsel only to the extent that arraignment ignited trial and indicates the commencement of trial. they further submitted that where there is an application to quash a charge as in the present case, the court has to hear and determine the applications before the arraignment and dispense with appearance of the defendants pending such determination.
The Court in its ruling after considering the submission of the counsels to the parties held that the application of the 2nd defendant for stay of proceedings and that he cannot address the court having filed an appeal against the court recusing itself in the matter lacked merit. The Court hence dismissed the application and directed parties to proceed with the address on the issue raised suo motu.
The Court adjourned to 13th November, 2026 for ruling.
DemocracyNewslineNewspaper November 9th, 2026
