The Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Wednesday resolved to proceed with the ongoing trial of 20 former leaders of the Petroleum Tanker Drivers branch of the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers in the absence of the 19th defendant, Malam Adamu Umaru.

The trial judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu, made the decision following arguments by the prosecution counsel, David Kaswe, who urged the court not to entertain further delays from the defence counsel, Abubakar Sanni, standing in for Christopher Oshomogie (SAN).

According to the prosecution, the defence counsel had repeatedly sought adjournments from the court due to the absence of the 19th defendant, citing similar reasons on three consecutive occasions.

Umaru and 19 others, including the former PTD National Chairman, Lucky Osesua, are being prosecuted by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation on a five-count charge.


The defendants in the charge number marked FCT/HC/CR/042/2023 are facing trial for alleged attempted murder, breach of peace, and assault.

The defendants are accused of attacking the NUPENG National President, Mr Williams Akporeha; the union’s Secretary-General, Olawale Afolabi; and the new PTD National Chairman, Augustine Egbon.

The prosecution alleges their actions were intended to cause the victims’ deaths, among other offences.

The other defendants include Dayyabu Garga, Humble Obinna, Akinolu Olabisi, Godwin Nwaka, Tiamiu Sikiru, Abdulmimin Shaibu, John Amajuoyi, Zaira Aregbo, Patrick Erhivwor, Stephen Ogheneruemu, Gift Ukponku, Sunday Ezeocha, and seven others. They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges.

At the resumed hearing, the prosecuting counsel informed the court that the 19th defendant had been absent at hearings in January and March and submitting the same excuse a third time for adjournment was simply a ploy to impede a speedy trial since the defendants have been granted bail.

Kaswe requested that the trial proceed in Umaru’s absence under Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. He argued that Umaru’s repeated absence satisfied the legal provisions to continue proceedings without him.

In response, the defence counsel confirmed Umaru’s prior absences but contended that he was in custody at a correctional facility in Calabar, a circumstance beyond his control. He argued that this made Section 352(4) of the ACJA inapplicable, adding that Umaru was still presumed innocent under the Nigerian Constitution.

Kaswe countered that no evidence had been presented to explain Umaru’s absence and accused the defence of deliberately attempting to stall the trial.

In his ruling, Justice Halilu emphasised that bail is a constitutional right but requires strict adherence to conditions, including consistent court attendance. He stated that Umaru’s absence constituted a breach of his bail terms and agreed with the prosecution’s request to proceed under the ACJA.

The judge further warned that he might revoke bail for all defendants if the defence continued to treat the criminal case with levity. He then ordered the continuation of the trial without the 19th defendant.

Justice Halilu held, “The essence of bail cannot be overemphasised. Though it is the constitutional right of the defendants. I hasten to note that in granting a defendant bail, conditions are often attached.

“One of which is to allow him to come back for trial, which is why bail is contractual. As such if a defendant decides to make himself unavailable either in conduct which will make him to be incarcerated as told by Oshiomogie (SAN), that the defendant is in calabar prison, for this the 19th defendant is in breach of the bail granted him by this court, i.e committing another crime that would put him away. Meanwhile, the ACJA stated by Kaswe is one that would allow a defendant to be tried in his absence.

“Yes, the Constitution now is supreme, but I am forced to say that the argument of the learned counsel of the defendant is one that has been dwarfed by the superior argument of Kaswe. I hold that the trial must continue”.

Following the conclusion of evidence-in-chief by the second prosecution witness (PW2), Williams Akporeha, the case was adjourned to July 9 for cross-examination.