I’m Fed Up!” – Judge Threatens To Revoke Maina’s Bail Amid Court Drama

Justice Abubakar Kutigi of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Asokoro, has issued a stern warning to A.I. Lemu, the lawyer representing Abdulrasheed Maina, former Chairman of the defunct Pension Reform Task Team.

The trial-within-trial was delayed on Thursday after Maina failed to appear in court, prompting the judge to express frustration over the continued absence of the first defendant. Justice Kutigi cautioned Lemu against any attempt to make a mockery of the court.

In response, Lemu explained that he was newly assigned to the case, claiming he was unfamiliar with the charges and the case history. He requested a two-week adjournment to familiarize himself with the matter.

“I am coming into this matter new. I don’t even have the charges. I don’t have the history of this case. I was briefed on the phone to take over,” Lemu told the court, promising that he would see the trial through. “Hopefully, I will be the last lawyer to appear in this case.”

Justice Kutigi, visibly irritated, reiterated that he would revoke Maina’s bail if the defendant failed to appear and described the defence counsel’s request as a potential attempt to undermine the court’s authority. Nonetheless, in the interest of ensuring a fair hearing, the judge granted the two-week adjournment.

“If your client cannot come to court, I will revoke his bail and have him brought in. If you are unfamiliar with the case, go and get the records—I will not wait endlessly. I will not allow a senior advocate to make a mockery of this court. The last time he appeared was over three years ago. I am fed up with this case. I’ve been in this profession for over 35 years and have never seen anything like this. I will give you two weeks to study the matter. If he is not in court for the trial-within-trial, I will revoke his bail,” Justice Kutigi declared.

The judge noted that Maina was released from prison on February 25, 2025, after serving a two-year sentence for money laundering, yet has failed to appear for his ongoing trial.

Meanwhile, the prosecution made two applications: first, to strike out the defence’s objection to the voluntariness of the defendants’ statements, since Maina could not be produced for the sub-trial; and second, to order the first defendant to cover costs incurred in transporting and preparing video evidence for court.

The defence, on the other hand, filed a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that Maina had already been convicted and served his sentence.

The court adjourned the matter to March 9, 2026, for both the trial-within-trial and the hearing on the jurisdictional challenge.