By Daniel Edu
A minor courtroom drama unfolded at the Kwara Chief Magistrates’ Court in Ilorin, as two lawyers representing Abdulazeez Adegbola, also known as Tani Olohun, who is facing trial for alleged defamation, openly disagreed over the right to move a motion in the case.
The two lawyers, Mufutau Olobi and Ademola Bank, both asserted that they were the rightful counsel to withdraw a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction in the case.
The situation prompted Chief Magistrate Mohammed Ibrahim to suspend the hearing and instructed all the legal representatives to select a new date for the case.
Tani Olohun is facing a five-count charge, including criminal conspiracy, incitement of public disturbance, disruption of public peace, criminal defamation of character, and intentional insult, all before the Chief Magistrates’ Court. These charges are said to contravene sections 97, 210, 392, and 114 of the Penal Code Law of Nigeria.
Tani Olohun has pleaded not guilty to these charges and was denied bail.
During Friday’s court session, Olobi stood to introduce himself and introduced Bank as co-counsel for Tani Olohun. He informed the court that they had filed two motions, one challenging the court’s jurisdiction and another seeking bail for their client. Olobi then expressed their intention to withdraw the motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
However, as Olobi was speaking, Bank rose and claimed that Olobi was not authorized to withdraw the motion since he was not the one who had filed it with the court. He argued that he had filed the motion and, therefore, should be the one to withdraw it.
Bank stated, “Your worship, I want to inform the court that my learned colleague is not the right person to withdraw the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court in the trial. I filed the motion before the court and I should be the right person to withdraw it. He is just entering the case. He should let me withdraw the motion before the court.”
Olobi, on the other hand, maintained that he was entitled to seek the motion’s withdrawal because he was the most senior counsel representing the defendant.
The chief magistrate urged the two lawyers to resolve their disagreement and come to an agreement in accordance with the law. The case was subsequently adjourned until October 30 for the continuation of the hearing.
