Sani Katu can’t withdraw his legal representation of Abdulrasheed Maina, former chairman of the Pension Reform Task Team (PRTT), who’s been prosecuted for fraud and financial impropriety, A federal high court in Abuja has ruled.
Katu had on Wednesday, during the court proceedings, through an oral application, sought the leave of court to backout from the matter.
Reacting to Katu’s application, Farouk Abdullah, prosecution counsel, said, while a counsel reserves the right to withdraw from representing a defendant in a legal matter, a senior counsel like Katu ought to have complied with section 349(8) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
Section 349(8) of ACJA states that “where a legal practitioner intends to disengage from a matter, he shall notify the Court, not less than three days before the date fixed for hearing and such notice shall be served on the Court and all parties”.
“My only reservation is the non-compliance with Section 349(8) of ACJA,” Abdullah said.
“In view of the non-compliance of senior counsel to the provision of the extant laws of withdrawal of counsel, we pray the court to refuse the application of the senior counsel and direct that the business of the day be done.”
Responding, Katu said the prosecution was privy to his withdrawal plan as he apprised him of his intention to back out from the suit after the close of Tuesday’s proceedings.
“When we appeared for the first defendant yesterday and in an attempt not to spring surprises on the prosecution, I specifically told the prosecution off record of our desirousness to withdraw from this matter. Hence our inability to file a formal application,” he said.
He then sought an adjournment to enable him to file a formal application of withdrawal before the court.
The prosecution also objected to the application for an adjournment.
“This application is outside the purview of Section 349(8) of ACJA which does not provide a leeway for an adjournment to file an application for withdrawal,” he said
“We, therefore, urge this court to discountenance the application for an adjournment for being misplaced.”
Ruling on the application, Okon Abang, the judge, agreed that the senior advocate failed to comply with the provisions of the law.
He said whatever was discussed between the two counsels is not the business of the court.
“What is off record is not before the court and I cannot take countenance of what is not before the court,” Abang held.
He described the application for withdrawal as one “done in bad faith”.
“M.S Katu has not offered any reason for seeking to withdraw from this matter,” the judge held
“His application to withdraw is to compound issues and to hold the court to ransom.
“In any event, from the record from the court, a notice has not been filed before the court.
“If a law requires that notice should be filed, it should be filed. It is not a sentimental issue but an issue of law which cannot be overlooked.
“The obvious lapses on his part cannot move the court to grant this application.
“The application to withdraw legal representation and cause confusion in the matter lacks merit and is accordingly refused.”
The court also refused an application for adjournment and ordered the defendant to produce his next witness.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE:
The Minister of Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Nyesom Wike has given owners of the 762…
Interswitch, a leading integrated payments and digital commerce company in Africa, has reaffirmed its commitment…
FG launches free train rides nationwide for December 20 to January 5. Passengers must…