News Investigators/ A Federal Capital Territory (FCT), high court, Apo, on Wednesday rejected a recusal bid by defendants in a case of alleged forgery and impersonation involving an Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa and Ibitade Bukola.
The defendants are facing trial before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie over allegations that they forged official documents.
They are alleged in addition to have impersonated Awa Kalu, SAN, in an attempt to mislead the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) into withdrawing criminal charges earlier filed against Giwa at the FCT High Court, Maitama, Abuja.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, the Prosecution Counsel, Mr F. G. Gabriel told the court that they have two motions.
Victor Giwa, the first defendant, represented himself, while Ogbu Aboje appeared for the second defendant, Bukola.
Giwa presented motions before the court, namely, Motion No. M/757/25 (dated May 21, 2025): seeking the discharge of the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Another motion marked, M/12210/25 (dated September 30, 2025), asked the court to strike out the charge for failing to disclose sufficient materials.
Further, motion with number M/13799/25 (dated October 27, 2025) was requesting the judge to recuse himself from the matter over alleged bias.
The prosecution also filed two motions, Motion No. M/14692/25 (dated November 10, 2025): seeking amendment of the charge (though the motion was not yet in the judge’s file).
Then, Motion No. M/14024/25: seeking revocation of the bail earlier granted to the first defendant.
Giwa, while arguing his motion for recusal, claimed that his trial had been “pre-arranged” by the complainant and that the presiding judge had shown “manifest bias” in the conduct of proceedings.
He relied on Sections 6(6) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), supporting his motion with an affidavit of 74 paragraphs and 15 exhibits.
The prosecution, in its counter-affidavit filed on Nov. 4, 2025, urged the court to dismiss the application, describing Giwa’s allegations as unfounded and speculative.
In a brief ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie dismissed the motion for recusal for lacking in merit.
The judge held that the application was “borne out of mere imagination” and that no credible evidence had been presented to suggest bias or prejudice.
“You cannot move a motion that is not properly presented before the court.
“Having examined the affidavit and submissions, I find no basis for the allegations of bias. All actions taken in this matter have followed due process,” the judge ruled.
Justice Onwuegbuzie further emphasised that the court remains committed to dispensing justice fairly, stating that “justice must be served without fear or favour.”
He subsequently adjourned until Nov. 27, for continuation of trial, specifically to hear the motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
NAN
