The two defendants were scheduled to be arraigned alongside another accused person, Cecil Osakwe, on a nine-count charge marked FCT/HC/CR/222/2023, filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

They are accused of criminal conspiracy involving the alleged forceful eviction of occupants and damage to property valued at about N300 million.

When the matter was called on Friday, the prosecution counsel, Aderonke Imana, told the court that although the charge was filed in January 2023, arraignment had repeatedly stalled due to what she described as a consistent pattern of absence by the defendants.

She argued that neither the first nor second defendant had consistently appeared in court or informed the prosecution of their absence, insisting that a bench warrant was necessary to compel attendance.

However, counsel to Victor Giwa, Ogbu Aboje, opposed the application, informing the court that his client was absent due to illness and had submitted medical documentation to support his condition. He also urged the court to hear a pending application before proceeding further.

He asked the court to excuse Giwa’s absence, citing health challenges as the reason for his non-attendance.

In response, the prosecution maintained that arraignment is the proper starting point of any criminal trial, adding that any proceedings before it would be invalid.

The prosecution therefore urged the court to issue a bench warrant to ensure the defendants appear for arraignment.

The third defendant, Cecil Osakwe, was present in court with his lawyer, Farouk Akanbi.

Delivering her ruling, Justice Samira Bature granted the prosecution’s request and ordered the arrest of Victor Giwa, stating that the explanations and medical documents presented amounted to deliberate delay tactics.

The judge noted that the case had suffered repeated delays since it was first filed in 2023 and commenced before her court in July 2024, lamenting that arraignment had still not taken place nearly two years later.

Justice Bature stressed that courts are not venues for delay tactics, adding that the defendants had shown disregard for the judicial process by failing to appear for arraignment.

She further ruled that all pending applications could only be considered after proper arraignment, stating that the court’s jurisdiction in criminal matters becomes fully activated only after that stage.