Two Weeks For What?” – Furious Judge Blasts Maina Over Endless Court Delays

During proceedings on Friday, Justice Kutigi stressed that Maina must present himself in court and respond to the charges against him.

Maina is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alongside Ann Igwe Olachi on a nine-count charge relating to the alleged receipt of stolen funds totalling ₦738,612,019.99. The defendants were first arraigned in 2019.

Friday’s session, scheduled for a trial-within-trial, could not proceed after Maina’s newly engaged counsel, Emmanuel Wuyi, requested an adjournment, stating that he had only recently been briefed on the case.

Addressing the court, Wuyi explained that his client had been unwell and acknowledged the matter’s history of repeated adjournments. He asked for a two-week postponement to allow him time to review the case file and possibly explore a resolution with the prosecution.

Justice Kutigi, however, questioned the justification for the request, noting what he described as a recurring pattern of delay.

“Two weeks for what? Everybody is ready; everybody is tired,” the judge remarked.

He added that while the court is committed to ensuring a fair hearing for all parties, repeated adjournments—often followed by the appointment of new counsel—have hindered progress. The judge observed that he had lost count of the number of lawyers who had represented Maina in the case and emphasised that the integrity of judicial proceedings must be upheld.

Counsel to the EFCC, Francis Usani, opposed the adjournment application, pointing out that prosecution witnesses for the trial-within-trial were present in court.

Usani informed the court that the defence had recently filed multiple applications, including a motion for stay of proceedings, a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, a travel request, and an application for appeal. He argued that the volume and substance of the filings suggested that defence counsel was sufficiently familiar with the matter to proceed.

He further offered to allow defence counsel review the defendant’s recorded statement to help expedite proceedings and conserve the court’s time.

Responding to the defence, Justice Kutigi sought clarification on the legal strategy being pursued, questioning how the defence could express readiness to proceed while simultaneously filing applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The judge urged the defence to decide on its course of action before the next hearing date.

Subsequently, defence counsel made an oral application to withdraw the motion for stay of proceedings dated February 10, 2026, and indicated readiness to continue with the trial-within-trial at the next sitting.

The court granted the request to withdraw the motion and adjourned the case to February 26 for continuation of the trial-within-trial.