The continuation of Sokoto ADC leadership tusle Monday took a dramatic turn as the both plantiff and defence counsel lawyers engaged a heated argument at the Federal High Court.
The war of words, which got everyone in the court room enticed to the proceedings, climaxed with the calm posture of the presiding Judge , Justice Ahmad Mahmud Gama who carefully listened to all parties submissions.
The argument which stem from an application filed by counsel to the 1st defendant, Dr Sulieman Usman (SAN) seeking adjournment till a further date because of his absence, was sharply objected by counsel to the plantiff, Barrister Mathew Bukaa SAN.
Before the ensuing argument, Barrister Salmanu Jabo who stood in for Dr Sulaiman Usman, SAN, said his principal was unavoidably absent attending to some critical issues relating to the suit hence the appeal for adjournment.
Salmanu submitted that as someone who is simply standing in, he has no authority to continue the case as demanded by the lead counsel to the plaintiff, Mathew Bukaa (SAN).
In his submission, Barrister Jabo insisted that he was incompetent to proceed with the hearing hence they have filed three pending processes before the Court that were not served on all the parties.
Continuation of the proceedings in Jabo’s submission will be prejudicial as that doing so glaringly tramples of the principle of fair hearing for all parties, hence the 4rh and 5th defendants are yet to be served with the proceedings.
Read Also:
On his part, Lead Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants, Prof. Ibrahim Abdullahi, SAN, didn’t object to the application for an adjournment by the Counsel to the 1st defendant, rather he urged the Court to grant it in the interest of justice and fair play.
Ibrahim, who drew the attention of the Court to Order 26, Rule 4 of the Federal High Court regulations said that a person who was served with proceedings has seven days within which to respond.
Ragged by the position of Prof. Ibrahim (SAN) counsel to the plaintiff, Burkaa SAN insisted that the adjournment plea be striked out for proceeding to continue hence according to him, he was ready for the day’s proceedings, and the plea by the 1st defendant counsel was not only incompetent but a deliberate ploy to delay justice.
The presiding Judge, Justice Ahmad Mahmud Gama having carefully listened to the parties, agreed that the application for adjournment was necessary to allow all parties be on ground and respond appropriately in the interest of fair hearing and adjourned the case to 22nd of July, 2026 for continuation of hearing.
However, to serve as deterrent against such application subsequently, Justice Gama imposed a fine of N500,000 on the Counsel for the 1st defendant which should be paid to the Court
Justice Gama further directed the Counsel for the 1st defendant to pay the air transportation costs of counsel to the Plaintiff upon the production of all the receipts and other related sundry costs.
