By Miriam Humbe
The absence of the National Coordinator of Multi-Sectional Crisis Recovery Projects, MCRP, North East Development Commission, (NEDC), Danjuma Mohammed on Thursday, June 25, 2026, stalled his trial before Justice K. N. Ogbonnaya of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, High Court, Zuba, Abuja.
Dele Oyewale, the EFCC’s Head of Media & Publicity disclosed this in a statement signed on Monday.
Justice Ogbonnaya who frowned at the absence of the defendant on two sittings consecutively without any provable reason before the Court, noted that there was no medical report before the Court to show that the defendant was ill and receiving medical attention as the defence team claimed.
The first defendant, Mohammed is facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, alongside Prince Achem and Aminu Alhaji (at large) on amended 54-count charge, bordering on conspiracy, false pretence, financial fraud and forgery to the tune of N2.2 billion.
At Monday`s proceedings, prosecution counsel, Joshua Saidi informed the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed with the trial with its witnesses in court and ready to testify, while the defence counsel, Chuka Obidike informed the court that the first defendant was still undergoing surgery. He sought to tender his medical report before the court and requested for an adjournment.
Also counsel to the second defendant, J.J. Usman, who said that he came prepared for the proceedings added that he became constrained when he heard from the counsel to the first defendant that his client was going to have a second surgery and likely to have the third due to complications in his health.
The prosecution counsel, in his response, urged the court to discountenance the medical report and refuse the defence counsel’s prayer for adjournment as he was not in receipt of any report of the first defendant’s ill health to warrant his continued absence in court.
“My lord, I apply that it should be on record that this is not the first time, this is the second time that our witnesses are coming all the way from the Northeast.
“As I speak, no written report from the first defendant has been brought to my attention nor has it been served on me. My lord, if we have gotten prior notice we won’t have bothered our witnesses to come from the Northeast.
“The implication now is that when this defendant jumps bail, we may not know who the surety is, therefore counsel is not in the position to tell the court the whereabouts of the first defendant.
“Therefore, we submit that there is no reasonable excuse why the first defendant is not in court. In the circumstances, I apply for the revocation of his bail and the issuance of bench warrant against him and also a notice to the surety to show cause why he will not forfeit the bail bond.
“We therefore urge your lordship to discountenance their excuses and accordingly grant our prayer,” he said.
The judge, in her ruling, faulted the tendering of the medical report, as no trial proceeding was going on at the moment and no witness testifying or being cross-examined.
With no such process going on in court, the judge stated the medical report cannot therefore, be tendered in evidence, but rather through an application made through the registrar of the court.
“The application is misleading, as counsel did not serve the court with any medical report at the last adjourned date. The court is surprised at the counsel in this matter that they did not deem it fit to serve the court, when they know it should be served on the court.
“Even if an application is made at the Court of Appeal regarding bail, that doesn’t mean the defendant will jump bail at the lower court. As far as I am concerned, the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown to the court, the oral submission that he is due for a surgery is on the basis of hearsay, not verification.
“Nobody is receiving the application because the court is not doing a trial and no witness is testifying. The court has laid bare all that has transpired, however, the court will not revoke the bail, but exercise discretionary power not by the submission made by the counsel to the first defendant.
“The court will adjourn for the last time on the instance of the first defendant for now and the bail revocation will be placed in abeyance,” she said.
She adjourned the matter till September 25,29, 2026 for continuation of trial.
