
Federal High Court: Ansaru Suspects Re-arraignment Lawyer Choice Delays Case
Summary
- Five alleged Ansaru members faced a delayed re-arraignment in Abuja over charges linked to a May 15 abduction and two killings in Oyo State.
- The proceedings were stalled when the defendants rejected representation from the Legal Aid Council, insisting on their previously appointed lawyer, Bala Dakum.
- The Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation conceded that the defendants' constitutional right to choose their counsel must be respected.
- The Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the case to Thursday for re-arraignment, with instructions for the defendants to contact their preferred lawyer.
- The court also directed the Department of State Services to provide the accused access to their chosen attorney for defense preparation.
Re-arraignment Delayed Over Legal Representation
The Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, acknowledged the constitutional imperative of respecting the defendants' preference for their legal representative.
Five individuals suspected of belonging to the Ansaru terrorist group were slated for re-arraignment this week in connection with a significant abduction incident. The Department of State Services (DSS) had prepared to present an amended six-count charge against them before the Federal High Court in Abuja. These charges, documented as FHC/ABJ/CR/438/2026, stem from allegations of their involvement in the May 15 abduction of students and educators in the Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State, an event that tragically resulted in the deaths of two victims.
The scheduled re-arraignment, initially set for Wednesday, encountered an unexpected delay. The proceedings were interrupted when the first defendant, Mahmud Muhammad, who is also known by the aliases Abu Bara’a and Abbas Mukhtar, voiced an objection to the legal representation provided. He, along with the other accused, declined the services of a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council, leading to a pause in the court's agenda. The other defendants named in the charge sheet are Abubakar Abbas (also known as Isah Adam and Mallam Mahmuda Al-Nigeri), Abdulrazak Umar (known as Abu Khalifa and Abu Khalid), Yunusa Musa (identified as Abu Yunusa Bin Musa), and Shamsu Adamu Sani (who goes by Abu Itisar).
Defendants Insist on Chosen Counsel
The core of the delay revolved around the Ansaru suspects' re-arraignment lawyer choice. During the court session, a Deputy Director from the Legal Aid Council, Akilaluyel Shettima, had formally announced his appearance to represent all five defendants. However, Mr. Muhammad, acting as a spokesperson for the group, informed the court that they had previously engaged a specific lawyer, Bala Dakum, and expressed their strong desire for him to continue handling their defense.
This assertion of a preferred legal representative prompted a response from the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation (DPPF), Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN. Mr. Oyedepo acknowledged the constitutional imperative of respecting the defendants' preference for their legal representative. He further clarified that the Department of State Services operates as a law-abiding institution, emphasizing that its objective was not to persecute the accused but to ensure that justice was properly administered in the case.
Court Directs Access to Preferred Attorney
Following the defendants' insistence on their chosen counsel and the DPPF's concession, the presiding judge, Justice Salim Ibrahim, took decisive action. The judge adjourned the matter until Thursday, allowing time for the issue of legal representation to be resolved. This adjournment was specifically for the re-arraignment to proceed with the defendants' preferred lawyer.
In a crucial directive, Justice Ibrahim instructed the accused individuals to establish contact with Mr. Dakum and ensure his attendance for the rescheduled proceedings. Furthermore, the court mandated the Department of State Services to grant the defendants unhindered access to their chosen lawyer. This measure is intended to facilitate their ability to adequately prepare their defense, in full accordance with established legal principles and procedures.
Source
How does this affect you?
Get an AI analysis of this article grounded in your jurisdictions, practice areas, and any policy documents you've uploaded to Wansom.
Finish Reading the Full Story and the Expert Analysis.
Get the latest legal & regulatory intelligence in Nigeria
Wansom is AI and can make mistakes.
