COURT ADJOURNS JUSTICE CHIDIEBERE BAIL CASE AMID LEGAL TEAM CLASH
Read Time:1 Minute, 45 Second
By: Balogun Ibrahim
The bail hearing of Nigerian activist, Justice Chidiebere, popularly known as Justice Crack, was on Thursday stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja following a disagreement among members of his legal team over who should lead his defence.
The dispute led to the withdrawal of an earlier bail application filed on his behalf, prompting the court to adjourn the matter until Monday, May 18, for a fresh application to be heard.
Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, defence counsel, Femi Balogun, accused another lawyer in the team, Marshall Abubakar, of frustrating the bail process after being prevented from leading the case.
Balogun said he was mandated by the activist’s family to take charge of the proceedings, citing his seniority at the bar.
He explained that although Abubakar had filed the original bail application, he insisted on leading the defence despite the presence of senior lawyers.
According to him, the disagreement led Abubakar to seek the withdrawal of the bail application after he was not allowed to take the lead role.
Balogun described the move as unjust and against the interest of justice, arguing that internal disputes among lawyers should not hinder an accused person’s right to seek bail.
He added that the court had no option but to strike out the application following its withdrawal.
He further disclosed that a new bail application would be filed immediately and taken up on the adjourned date.
Balogun also noted that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, had taken over the case from the Department of State Services, although the prosecution raised no objection during the sitting.
The activist was earlier remanded in prison custody over allegations linked to a viral video in which he criticised the Nigerian Army’s feeding arrangements.
He is facing charges under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, for allegedly spreading false information through social media capable of causing public disorder.
The case has sparked mixed reactions online, with supporters claiming it is an attempt to silence dissent, while authorities insist the prosecution is based on existing cybercrime laws.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0