A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court judge, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, has refused to recuse himself from the trial of lawyer and activist Victor Giwa, striking out a motion filed by Giwa seeking the judge’s recusal. The ruling took place at the High Court in Apo, Abuja.

---

Background of the Case

Victor Giwa is facing charges from the police for allegedly forging the letterhead of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Awa Kalu. However, Chief Kalu has denied any wrongdoing by Giwa in a letter to the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Kayode Egbetokun, stating that he neither lodged a complaint nor authorized any action against Giwa.

Despite this, the police have continued with charges against Giwa.

---

Motion for Recusal

Giwa had filed Motion Number M/13799/2025 seeking the judge’s recusal on the grounds of bias and partisanship. In his affidavit, he alleged:

• That Asabe Waziri, associated with the FCT High Court, enjoys preferential support within the Chief Judge’s office.
• He has no chance of receiving a fair trial, claiming that the outcome is pre-determined.
• He requested the involvement of the Department of State Security Service (DSS) and the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to investigate the matter.
• Giwa offered to undertake a polygraph test to verify his claims.

“I have no chances of getting justice before this Honourable Court in this case as the outcome is pre-determined… I humbly and respectfully demand that this case be further investigated by the DSS and the Chief Justice of Nigeria,” Giwa stated.

---

Court Proceedings

During Wednesday’s proceedings, Justice Onwuegbuzie began delivering his ruling before both parties had made submissions. The court’s Legal Assistant intervened, reminding the judge that arguments from both sides had not yet been presented.

After Giwa argued his motion, the judge struck it out, ruling that:

“This court is not biased. The issue raised by the applicant in his motion has no basis. This motion is hereby struck out.”

---

Reaction

Lawyers present expressed surprise that the judge had initially begun ruling on the motion before hearing submissions from the applicant and respondent. The development has drawn attention to concerns about judicial procedure and fairness in high-profile cases.