Trending 
The factional National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Tanimu Turaki, has challenged the bench warrant issued for his arrest by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, and has applied for a stay of execution.
The warrant was granted on Thursday by Justice Peter Kekemeke after Turaki failed to appear in court for his arraignment over allegations of providing false information to the police.
In a statement released shortly after the ruling, Turaki’s office confirmed that his legal team had lodged an appeal against the warrant and filed an application seeking to halt its enforcement.
The notice of appeal, signed by his Principal Private Secretary, Ibrahim Abdullahi, stated that Turaki’s absence was due to a “sudden hospital visitation.”
“Today, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Maitama granted a bench warrant against Kabiru Turaki SAN on a charge of giving false information to the police in a petition he wrote as a private citizen in 2022. The warrant was granted because of his absence in court today when the case was called.
“The said petition was written in 2022, and the case emanating therefrom was charged to court today, and due to his sudden hospital visitation, resulting in his absence from the court.
“Additionally, his lawyers had filed an application seeking to quash the charge, which ordinarily would not require his presence. With the issuance of the bench warrant, his lawyers have immediately filed an appeal and application for the stay of execution against the said order,” it read.
Turaki’s office further clarified that the case is not connected to internal PDP matters, although it suggested that “external political influence cannot be completely exorcised.”
It also called on party members to remain calm, assuring them that his legal team is managing the situation.
The charge, instituted by the Inspector-General of Police, originates from a petition Turaki submitted in 2022 as a private citizen.
During the proceedings, prosecution counsel Usman Rabiu informed the court that the case was slated for the defendant to take his plea, noting that Turaki was absent despite having been duly served with both the charge and hearing notice.
Rabiu subsequently relied on Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, urging the court to issue a bench warrant to compel his appearance.
In response, defence counsel Abdulaziz Ibrahim, SAN, argued that a motion seeking to quash the charge had already been filed and requested five days to submit written arguments, maintaining that his client’s presence was unnecessary until the motion was determined.
The prosecution opposed this position, insisting that the validity of the charge could only be contested after the defendant had entered his plea.
In his ruling, Justice Kekemeke held that the defendant, having been served with both the charge and the hearing notice, had no valid reason for failing to appear in court. He observed that the defence did not dispute service but failed to explain the absence.
The judge further ruled that under Section 396(2) of the ACJA 2015, where a defendant aware of a pending charge fails to attend court, the proper course is to issue a bench warrant to compel attendance.
He also held that the motion to quash the charge was premature and could only be considered after the defendant’s plea had been taken.
Accordingly, the court ordered the issuance of the bench warrant and adjourned the case until 22 April for arraignment.
