Court Orders Arrest of PDP Factional Chairman Turaki

A bench warrant ordering the arrest of Senator Kabiru Tanimu Turaki (SAN), the factional National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has been issued by Justice Peter Kekemeke of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court.

The judge issued the arrest warrant yesterday, following the absence of in  court for his arraignment on a one- count criminal charge brought against him by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) in which he is accused of, among others, giving false information to the police.

The count in the charge, marked: CR/647/2026 reads: “That you Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, (SAN), male, No: 37 T. Y.  Danjuma Street, Asokoro, Abuja on or about 5th October, 2022 at Abuja within the jurisdiction of this honourable court you gave false information to the Inspector-General of Police via petition dated 5th October, 2022 and signed by you on your letter head paper against one Saidi Mohammed Mainasara with intent to use the lawful power of  Inspector-General of Police to the injury or annoyance of the said Muhammed Mainasara and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 140 of the Penal Code Law.

When the case was called, the prosecution counsel, Usman Rabiu said the business of the court for the day was for Turaki to enter his plea to the charge.

Rabiu informed the court that Turaki was absent in court despite being served with the charge and also served with a hearing notice by the court, informing him about the day’s proceedings.

He therefore invoked the provision of Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 to urge the court to issue an arrest warrant for the defendant to be produced before the court for the purpose of his arraignment.

The prosecution counsel faulted the submission by counsel to the defendant, Abdul-aziz Ibrahim (SAN), who referred the court to  a motion he filed for the defendant, seeking that the charge be quashed.

Rabiu contended that the defence could only challenge the validity of the charge only after the plea of the defendant has been taken.

However, counsel to Turaki, Ibrahim,  urged the court to discountenance the submission by Rabiu and give him five more days to file written addresses to convince the court that the defendant’s presence was not required until the motion was determined.

Ruling, Justice Kekemeke held that despite being aware of the day’s proceedings having been served with hearing notice and the charge, it was wrong for Turaki to fail to attend court without providing any reason.

The judge noted that the defence counsel did not deny that his client was served with hearing notice of Thursday’s proceedings, but failed to provide any reason why the defendant was not in court.

Justice Kekemeke held that by the provision of  Section 396(2) ACJA 2015 where a defendant, who is aware that a charge is pending against him in court but chose to stay away, the proper order to be made is for bench warrant to ensure the production of the defendant to answer to the charge.

The judge held that the motion filed by the defendant seeking the quashing of the charge was not ripe for hearing, adding that such a motion could only be heard after the defendant’s plea had been taken.

Justice Kekemeke then proceeded to issue a bench warrant for Turaki’s arrest to compel the defendant to attend court to answer to the pending charge and adjourned till April 22 for his arraignment.