By Francis Wilfred
Justice Maryann Anenih of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, expressed displeasure over what she described as attempts to delay proceedings in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, and seven other defendants.
Mamman, alongside Mustapha Abubakar Bida, Joseph Omotayo Adewunmi, Ben Nsikak, Stephen Ojo, Oladipo Adebowale, Michael Achua, and Ogunjobi Olusila, is facing a nine-count charge bordering on alleged conspiracy, false pretence, and intent to defraud, involving a total sum of ₦31,070,541,349.64.
The court’s reaction followed an objection by counsel to the second defendant, Temitayo Sonuyi, SAN, who argued that the trial should not proceed pending the determination of his application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Justice Anenih, however, held that the prayers contained in the affidavit filed by the defence were not ripe for hearing, explaining that she required adequate time to study the processes before delivering a ruling. She further noted that the final processes were not yet properly before the court.
“I cannot take the prayers in the application at this stage because I have not read it. It is not ripe for hearing, and the final process is not in the case file before me,” the judge stated.
Earlier in the proceedings, Sonuyi drew the court’s attention to two applications filed on December 5 and December 10, 2025, respectively, challenging the competence of the charge and the jurisdiction of the court.
In response, prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, informed the court that the second defendant had been served with the prosecution’s counter-affidavit on January 6, 2026. He added that he was recently made aware of the defence counsel’s response to that counter-affidavit.
Oyedepo urged the court to allow the trial to proceed, noting that the prosecution was fully prepared and had its witnesses in court. He argued that, in order not to waste judicial time, the court could take the jurisdictional application at a later date.
Following the court’s observations, Sonuyi sought and obtained leave to withdraw his affidavit in response to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit, assuring the court that he would “put his house in order.”
Counsel to the sixth defendant, J. A. Egwaede, informed the court that the prosecution’s counter-affidavit was served on him only in open court and requested an adjournment to enable him to study the document and file an appropriate response.
In her ruling, Justice Anenih held that, in the interest of justice, an adjournment was necessary, particularly as the court is duty-bound to hear and determine the jurisdictional challenge, which would ultimately affect the proceedings.
The case was adjourned to February 18, March 11, and March 25, 2026, for ruling on the pending applications and continuation of trial.
The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges, which remain allegations until proven by the prosecution before the court.
