News Investigators/ The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, rebuked Mr Terkaa Aondo, SAN, one of the lawyers in the Kabiru Turaki-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s leadership dispute suit filed against a faction of the party loyal to the FCT Minister, Mr Nyesom Wike, for alleged distortion of facts.
The development occurred shortly after the case was called for hearing before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Aondo had appeared on Dec. 5, 2025, the last adjourned date, for Turaki-led faction of th PDP.
The plaintiffs; PDP, its National Chairman, Kabiru Turaki and the National Secretary, Taofeek Arapaja had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2520/2025, sued the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police and the Nigerian Police as 1st and 2nd defendants.
The plaintiffs are asking the court for an order directing the officers of the police to vacate their national headquarters located at Wadata Plaza in Wuse, Abuja, among other reliefs.
But Mr Ken Njemanze, SAN, who appeared for parties seeking to be joined in the case, had notified the court of their motion for joinder.
Justice Abdulmalik, who directed all parties to file their processes before the next adjourned date, fixed Jan. 16 for hearing of all pending applications and substantive matter.
Upon resumed hearing on Friday, Mr Paul Erokoro, SAN, who led the team of lawyers for the plaintiff (Turaki-led PDP), informed the court that after the last sitting, they were served by the parties seeking to be joined in the suit with a counter affidavit to the main suit, even though they were yet to be joined.
Erokoro said they had responded earlier in the morning by filing an application for court to strike out the counter affidavit.
“We have also, this morning, filed our counter affidavit to the application of the parties seeking to be joined for joinder and we filed a motion for extension of time within which to file those processes,” he said.
The lawyer said the parties seeking to be joined had been served, though the processes for the court record were yet to be transmitted to the court registry.
Erokoro sought a stand down or a short adjournment to allow them do the needful.
Mimi Ayua, who represented the police (1st and 2nd defendants) acknowledged receipt of application for joinder but said they did not intend to file any response.
She however said that the police had filed two separate counter affidavits to the plaintiffs’ application for mandatory injunctions and the originating summons and the processes had been served.
Erokoro confirmed the receipt of the processes.
Responding to Erokoro’s submission, Mr Emmanuel Okala, SAN, who led other senior lawyers in the camp of faction loyal to Wike, expressed worry about the application for either a stand down or adjournment.
He told the court that on the last adjourned date, parties came to some form of agreement which led the court to direct that the case be adjourned to Jan. 16 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.
“My lord, that is the standing order of this court and nothing has changed that.
“And it is the duty of parties to obey a subsisting order,” he said.
Okala said it was in obedience to the order that they filed their counter affidavit and served accordingly.
The lawyer said it was agreed on the last adjourned date that the parties seeking to be joined should also filed their counter affidavit for speedy determination of the matter in view of the reliefs being sought.
He said this was decided so that at the point of delivering judgment, if their joineder is allowed, their counter would be taking into consideration but if refused, the counter would be discarded.
Okala said though he was not personally present on that day, his colleague, Njemanze, who led their team, reported to him that Aondo, who appeared for the plaintiffs, agreed to the arrangement.
Besides, he said Aondo stared in the open court that day that the plaintiffs would not oppose their motion for joinder.
He submitted that they already came prepared for the hearing considering the fact that the FCT area councils’ election is at the corner, among other forthcoming polls.
“Therefore, this case is one that deserves urgency and the order of this court should be given full effect,” he said.
Okala expressed surprised that until this morning, the plaintiffs did not file any counter affidavit in order to delay proceedings.
“We are ready to go on with the hearing my lord and we are not asking for adjournment or stand down,” Okala insisted.
He said, “what should be paramount is that a major opposition party is being locked down and no activity is not going on there.”
Responding, Erokoro said like Okala, he was not in court on the last adjourned date, but that the information he received from Aondo was that the court did not delve into the application for joinder.
At this point, Justice Abdulmalik directed Aondo to address the court on the issue.
Aondo explained that on Dec. 5, 2025, when Njemanze said he had a motion for joinder, he (Aondo) intimated the court that he was just being informed about the application without any prior knowledge.
The lawyer explained further that the court said the matter should be kept until next adjourned date and that there was neither a consensus on that nor did court make a ruling on it.
Justice Abdulmalik then expressed surprised at Aondo’s response.
The judge said that on the last adjourned date when Njemanze informed the court about his motion for joinder, Aondo told the court that they would not be challenging it so that the case could be quickly determined and that “the more the merrier.”
According to the judge, I purposely and intentionally asked Mr Aondo to stand so that I can hear him because he is not on trial but I am surprised and amazed at his response.
“What I want to say is that I am passionate about my calling and that is to dispense justice at all time.
“When an SAN stands before the court and decides to distort the facts, I get a little bit confused.
“There is something that came before my calling, and that is my religion. I am a devote Catholic. I also stand before God.
“If something happens, say the truth, heavens will not fall.
“There were some young lawyers who were there that day and are still here today.
“I am.shocked that Mr Aondo will face the court, knowing that the judge is like a god on earth and will distorts facts.
“So many SANs have appeared before me that we, judges, also learned from; we take note.
“But when an SAN appeared before me and distorts facts, it is worrisome.
“If we have recording system in place, I am sure we won’t be able to do that.
“When it is in place, lawyers, especially senior lawyers won’t be able to slide from what they say.
“It is a sad day for me for administration of justice. I weep for this country,” the judge said.
Justice Abdulmalik, who said Aondo was not on trial, said the practice should be done transparently.
Erokoro, who tendered an apology on Aondo’s behalf, therefore, applied to withdraw their application seeking that the motion for joinder be struck out.
“I must apologise for lack of thoroughness because it was as a result that we brought this application,” he said.
The judge consequently struck out the plaintiffs’ application and Okala moved their motion for joinder which was granted after it was not also opposed by the police lawyer, Ayua.
The judge, who ordered that all the processes be amended, named the parties to be joined as 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants respectively.
Erokoro, however, told the court that based on their motion asking for the judge to recuse herself from the case, he would be applying that the application be taken independently from all other pending motions and the substantive suit.
He said if their motion for recusal is taking along with other pending applications, it would mean that it had already been refused since the court is going to write the judgement.
Okala then indicated his interest to respond to motion for recusal.
On Erokoro’s submission that the motion for recusal should be taking separately, Okala argued that such application is against the rule of FHC because it bordered on the jurisdiction of the court.
“What the application means is that the judge is not qualify to hear our matter either on anticipation of bias,” he said.
He said any application that had to do with the rules of the court should be taken along with the substantive matter, citing Order 29 of FHC Rules.
Okala equally urge the court to maintain its earlier order that all pending applications would be heard together.
But Erokoro disagreed with Okala that an application for recusal does not challenge the jurisdiction of the court.
According to him, it borders on issues of fair hearing under Section 36 of the constitution.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik ordered that all aplocations would be taken together, including the motion for recusal.
The judge, who ordered that parties should regularise their processes before the next adjourned date, fixed Jan. 23 fo definite hearing.
NAN
