The factional National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Tanimu Turaki, has appealed a bench warrant issued for his arrest by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, and filed an application seeking a stay of execution.
The warrant was issued on Thursday by Justice Peter Kekemeke after Turaki failed to appear in court for his arraignment on a charge of allegedly giving false information to the police.
In a statement issued shortly after the ruling, Turaki’s office confirmed that his legal team had filed an appeal against the bench warrant, along with an application for a stay of execution.
The appeal notice, signed by his Principal Private Secretary, Ibrahim Abdullahi, explained that Turaki’s absence in court was due to a “sudden hospital visitation.”
“Today, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Maitama granted a bench warrant against Kabiru Turaki SAN on a charge of giving false information to the police in a petition he wrote as a private citizen in 2022. The warrant was granted because of his absence in court today when the case was called.
“The said petition was written in 2022, and the case emanating therefrom was charged to court today, and due to his sudden hospital visitation, resulting in his absence from the court.
“Additionally, his lawyers had filed an application seeking to quash the charge, which ordinarily would not require his presence. With the issuance of the bench warrant, his lawyers have immediately filed an appeal and application for the stay of execution against the said order,” it read.
READ ALSO: Court Issues Arrest Warrant For PDP Factional Chairman Turaki
Turaki’s office added that the matter is unrelated to internal PDP affairs but suggested that “external political influence cannot be completely exorcised.”
It urged party members to remain calm, assuring them that his legal team is handling the situation.
Court Ruling
The charge, filed by the Inspector-General of Police, stems from a petition Turaki wrote in 2022 as a private citizen.
At the proceedings, prosecution counsel, Usman Rabiu, told the court that the matter was scheduled for the defendant to enter his plea. He noted that Turaki was absent despite being duly served with both the charge and hearing notice.
Rabiu subsequently invoked Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, urging the court to issue a bench warrant to compel the defendant’s appearance.
In response, defence counsel, Abdulaziz Ibrahim, SAN, argued that a motion had already been filed seeking to quash the charge. He requested five days to file written addresses, maintaining that his client’s presence was not required until the motion was determined.
However, the prosecution opposed this position, arguing that the validity of the charge could only be challenged after the defendant had taken his plea.
In his ruling, Justice Kekemeke held that the defendant, having been served with the charge and hearing notice, had no justification for his absence in court. He noted that the defence did not deny service but failed to provide any reason for Turaki’s non-appearance.
The judge further held that under Section 396(2) of the ACJA 2015, where a defendant aware of a pending charge fails to appear, the appropriate order is the issuance of a bench warrant to compel attendance.
He also ruled that the motion to quash the charge was premature and could only be entertained after the defendant’s plea had been taken.
Leave a Reply