The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Friday rebuked Terkaa Aondo (SAN), one of the lawyers in the Kabiru Turaki-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s leadership dispute suit filed against the faction loyal to FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, for alleged distortion of facts.
The development occurred shortly after the case was called for a hearing before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.
Mr Aondo had appeared on December 5, 2025, the last adjourned date, for the 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 of Police (IGP) and the Nigerian Police as the first and second defendants.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order directing the police officers to vacate their national headquarters at Wadata Plaza, Wuse, Abuja, among other reliefs.
But 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 January 16 for the hearing of all pending applications and substantive matters.
Upon resumed hearing on Friday, 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.
Mr Erokoro said they had responded earlier in the morning by filing an application for the 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 court record processes had yet to be transmitted to the court registry.
Mr Erokoro sought a stand-down or a short adjournment to allow them to do the needful.
Mimi Ayua, who represented the police (the first and second defendants), acknowledged receipt of the application for joinder but said they did not intend to file a response.
She, however, said 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.
Mr Erokoro confirmed the receipt of the processes.
Responding to Mr Erokoro’s submission, Emmanuel Okala (SAN), who led other senior lawyers in the camp of faction loyal to Mr Wike, expressed worry about the application for either a stand-down or adjournment.
He told the court that on the last adjourned date, the parties reached an agreement, which led the court to direct that the case be adjourned to January 16 for the hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.
Mr Okala said they filed their counter-affidavit in obedience to the order and served it accordingly.
The lawyer said that on the last adjourned date, the parties seeking to be joined also agreed to file their counter-affidavits for the speedy determination of the matter, in view of the reliefs sought.
Mr Okala said that, though he was not personally present on that day, his colleague, Mr Njemanze, who led their team, reported to him that Mr Aondo, who appeared for the plaintiffs, agreed to the arrangement.
Besides, he said Mr Aondo stated in the open court that day that the plaintiffs would not oppose their motion for joinder.
He submitted that they were already prepared for the hearing, given that the FCT area council elections are around 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.
Mr Okala expressed surprise that, until this morning, the plaintiffs had not filed any counter-affidavit to delay proceedings.
“We are ready to go on with the hearing, my lord, and we are not asking for adjournment or stand down,” Mr Okala insisted.
He said, “What should be paramount is that a major opposition party is being locked down and no activity is going on there.”
Responding, Mr Erokoro said that, like Mr 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 Mr Aondo to address the court on the issue.
Mr Aondo explained that on December 5, 2025, when Mr Njemanze said he had a motion for joinder, he (Mr Aondo) informed the court that he was being informed of the application for the first time.
The lawyer explained further that the court said the matter should be kept until the next adjourned date and that there was neither consensus on that nor a ruling by the court.
Justice Abdulmalik then expressed surprise at Mr Aondo’s response.
The judge said that on the last adjourned date, when Mr Njemanze informed the court about his motion for joinder, Mr 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.”
The judge said, “I purposely and intentionally asked Aondo to stand so that I could hear him because he is not on trial, but I am surprised and amazed at his response.
“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 devout Catholic. I also stand before God.
“If something happens, say the truth; heaven 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 distort facts. So many SANs have appeared before me that we judges have also learned from; we take note.
“But when an SAN appeared before me and distorted facts, it is worrisome. If we have a 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 in the administration of justice. I weep for this country,” the judge said.
Justice Abdulmalik, who said Mr Aondo was not on trial, said the practice should be done transparently.
Mr Erokoro, who tendered an apology on Mr 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 Mr Okala moved their motion for joinder, which was granted after it was not opposed by the police lawyer, Ms Ayua.
The judge, who ordered that all the processes be amended, named the parties to be joined as third, fourth, and fifth defendants, respectively.
Mr Erokoro, however, told the court that, based on their motion asking the judge to recuse herself from the case, he would be applying that the application be taken independently of all other pending motions and the substantive suit.
He said that if their motion for recusal is taken along with other pending applications, it would mean it had already been refused, since the court will write the judgment.
Mr Okala then indicated his interest in responding to the motion for recusal.
On Mr Erokoro’s submission that the motion for recusal should be taken separately, Mr Okala argued that such an application is against the rule of FHC because it borders on the jurisdiction of the court.
“What the application means is that the judge is not qualified to hear our matter either on anticipation of bias,” he said.
He said any application relating to the court’s rules should be taken along with the substantive matter, citing Order 29 of the FHC rules.
Mr Okala equally urged the court to maintain its earlier order that all pending applications would be heard together.
But Mr Erokoro disagreed with Mr Okala that an application for recusal does not challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
According to him, it borders on issues of a fair hearing under Section 36 of the constitution.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik ordered that all applications would be taken together, including the motion for recusal.
The judge, who ordered that the parties regularise their processes before the next adjourned date, fixed January 23 for a definite hearing.
(NAN)
Discussion about this post