“If We Had Recording System, Lawyers Won’t Slide From What They Say” — Judge Rebukes SAN For Allegedly Distorting Facts In Turaki Vs Wike PDP Dispute

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday rebuked Mr. Terkaa Aondo, SAN, one of the lawyers in the Kabiru Turaki-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership dispute suit filed against a faction of the party loyal to the FCT Minister, Mr. Nyesom Wike, for alleged distortion of facts.

The development occurred shortly after the case was called for hearing before Justice Abdulmalik.

The plaintiffs — PDP, its National Chairman, Kabiru Turaki, and the National Secretary, Taofeek Arapaja — had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2520/2025, sued the Inspector-General of Police and the Nigerian Police as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The plaintiffs are asking the court for an order directing the officers of the police to vacate the party’s national headquarters located at Wadata Plaza in Wuse, Abuja, among other reliefs.

At the last sitting on December 5, 2025, Mr. Ken Njemanze, SAN, who appeared for parties seeking to be joined in the case (the Wike-loyal faction), had notified the court of their motion for joinder.

Justice Abdulmalik had directed all parties to file their processes before the next adjourned date and fixed January 16 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive matter.

Upon resumed hearing on Friday, Mr. Paul Erokoro, SAN, who led the team of lawyers for the plaintiff (Turaki-led PDP), informed the court that after the last sitting, they were served by the parties seeking to be joined with a counter affidavit to the main suit, even though they were yet to be joined.

Erokoro said they had responded earlier in the morning by filing an application for the court to strike out the counter affidavit.

He sought a stand down or a short adjournment to allow them do the needful.

Responding to Erokoro’s submission, Mr. Emmanuel Okala, SAN, who led other senior lawyers in the camp of the faction loyal to Wike, expressed worry about the application for either a stand down or adjournment.

He told the court that on the last adjourned date, parties came to some form of agreement which led the court to direct that the case be adjourned to January 16 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.

“My lord, that is the standing order of this court and nothing has changed that. And it is the duty of parties to obey a subsisting order,” he said.

Okala said though he was not personally present on that day, his colleague, Njemanze, who led their team, reported to him that Aondo, who appeared for the plaintiffs, agreed to the arrangement.

Besides, he said Aondo stated in the open court that day that the plaintiffs would not oppose their motion for joinder.

“We are ready to go on with the hearing my lord and we are not asking for adjournment or stand down,” Okala insisted.

Responding, Erokoro said like Okala, he was not in court on the last adjourned date, but that the information he received from Aondo was that the court did not delve into the application for joinder.

At this point, Justice Abdulmalik directed Aondo to address the court on the issue.

Aondo explained that on December 5, 2025, when Njemanze said he had a motion for joinder, he (Aondo) intimated the court that he was just being informed about the application without any prior knowledge.

The lawyer explained further that the court said the matter should be kept until the next adjourned date and that there was neither a consensus on that nor did the court make a ruling on it.

Justice Abdulmalik then expressed surprise at Aondo’s response.

The judge said that on the last adjourned date when Njemanze informed the court about his motion for joinder, Aondo told the court that they would not be challenging it so that the case could be quickly determined and that “the more the merrier.”

According to the judge: “I purposely and intentionally asked Mr. Aondo to stand so that I can hear him because he is not on trial but I am surprised and amazed at his response.

“What I want to say is that I am passionate about my calling and that is to dispense justice at all time.

“When an SAN stands before the court and decides to distort the facts, I get a little bit confused.

“There is something that came before my calling, and that is my religion. I am a devout Catholic. I also stand before God.

“If something happens, say the truth, heavens will not fall.

“There were some young lawyers who were there that day and are still here today.

“I am shocked that Mr. Aondo will face the court, knowing that the judge is like a god on earth and will distort facts.

“So many SANs have appeared before me that we, judges, also learned from; we take note.

“But when an SAN appeared before me and distorts facts, it is worrisome.

“If we have recording system in place, I am sure we won’t be able to do that.

“When it is in place, lawyers, especially senior lawyers won’t be able to slide from what they say.

“It is a sad day for me for administration of justice. I weep for this country,” the judge said.

Justice Abdulmalik, who said Aondo was not on trial, said the practice should be done transparently.

Erokoro, who tendered an apology on Aondo’s behalf, therefore applied to withdraw their application seeking that the motion for joinder be struck out.

“I must apologise for lack of thoroughness because it was as a result that we brought this application,” he said.

The judge consequently struck out the plaintiffs’ application and Okala moved their motion for joinder which was granted after it was not also opposed by the police lawyer, Mimi Ayua.

The judge ordered that all the processes be amended and named the parties to be joined as 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants respectively.

Erokoro told the court that based on their motion asking for the judge to recuse herself from the case, he would be applying that the application be taken independently from all other pending motions and the substantive suit.

He said if their motion for recusal is taken along with other pending applications, it would mean that it had already been refused since the court is going to write the judgment.

Okala argued that such application is against the rule of the Federal High Court because it bordered on the jurisdiction of the court.

“What the application means is that the judge is not qualified to hear our matter either on anticipation of bias,” he said.

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik ordered that all applications would be taken together, including the motion for recusal.

The judge, who ordered that parties should regularise their processes before the next adjourned date, fixed January 23 for definite hearing.

The post “If We Had Recording System, Lawyers Won’t Slide From What They Say” — Judge Rebukes SAN For Allegedly Distorting Facts In Turaki Vs Wike PDP Dispute appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.