Absence of counsel stalls hearing in alleged age falsification suit against CJN

An FCT High Court, Jabi, has fixed May 31 for ruling and possible judgment in the age falsification suit filed against Justice Tanko Muhammad, the acting Chief Judge of Nigeria (CJN).

Justice Danlami Senchi at the resumed hearing of the suit fixed the date, following the absence of the absence the petitioner/plaintiff, Mr Tochi Michael and his counsel.

Senchi said he fixed the date to give another opportunity to the petitioner and his counsel to show cause and prove the suit filed against the CJN sometimes in April.

Our correspondent reports that the petitioner filed the suit alleging that the CJN falsified his age in all official record from Dec. 31, 1950 to Dec. 31, 1953.

The petitioner in the originating summon with suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/79/2019 said that the act of the CJN was done deliberately.

He prayed the court to determine whether the CJN breached the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(FRN).

Michael is also praying the court to determine whether the CJN breached the Code of Conduct for judicial officers and that he has brought the image of Nigeria judiciary to a state of disrepute and odium.

The petitioner in the originating summon is also praying the court for a declaration directing the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to prosecute the CJN for the offence of perjury and any other order the court may deem fit.

Earlier, Mr Sam Ologunorisa,SAN, counsel to the CJN informed the court that the petitioner and his counsel were not in the court similar to what happened at the last adjourned date on May 21.

According to Ologunorisa, it is unsual and outside the practice of the law where a defendant’s counsel will be begging a plaintiff to come to court in a suit he filed.

He urged the court to dismiss it.

He added that the defendant had filed a notice of preliminary objection to the suit, a written address and a counter affidavit to challenge the merit of the suit.

“We urge the court to deem that the originating summon has been argued, we want the court to take decision on the merit of the case.

“The authorship and the source of information in the originating summon is unknown, the sheet of paper is now been used to scandalized the CJN; this is an abuse, it is not a fact, we urged the court to dismiss the case.

“If the court will agree with me, a cost should be levy on a counsel that filed this case, he did not carry out his investigation well, this is not how we were trained at the law school.

“The lawyer who filed this suit did not believed in it but he still went ahead and file it, it is simply to scandalize the CJN.