A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Thursday, March 26, 2026, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Tanimu Turaki, SAN.
Justice Peter Kekemeke issued the warrant after Turaki failed to attend court for his arraignment.
The Inspector-General of Police (IGP) charged Turaki with giving false information to the police.
When the case was called, the prosecution counsel, Usman Rabiu, said the business of the court for the day was for Turaki to enter his plea.
Rabiu noted that the defendant was absent in court despite being served with the charge and also served with a hearing notice by the court, informing him about the day’s proceedings.
He then invoked the provision of Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
The provision was to urge the court to issue an arrest warrant for the defendant to be produced before the court for the purpose of his arraignment.
Rabiu faulted the reference by the defence counsel, Abdulaziz Ibrahim, SAN, to a motion he filed for the defendant, seeking that the charge be quashed.
He further argued that the defence could only challenge the validity of the charge after the plea of the defendant has been taken, thus urged the court to give him five more days to file written addresses to convince the court that the defendant’s presence was not required until the motion was determined.
After listening to the argument of the prosecuting counsel, the trial judge, Justice Kekemeke held that the defendant, having being served with a hearing notice and also aware of the day’s proceedings, it was wrong for Turaki to fail to attend court without providing any reason.
Kekemeke also said that the defence counsel did not deny that his client was served with a hearing notice of today’s proceedings, and failed to provide any reason why the defendant was not in court.
Kekemeke therefore declared that by the provision of Section 396(2) ACJA 2015, where a defendant, who is aware that a charge is pending against him in court, but chose to stay away, the proper order to be made is for a bench warrant to ensure the production of the defendant to answer to the charge.
The judge also said that the motion filed by the defendant seeking the quashing of the charge was not ripe for hearing, adding that such a motion could only be heard after the defendant’s plea had been taken.
Accordingly, Justice Kekemeke ordered that a bench warrant be issued on Turaki to compel him to attend court to answer to the pending charge and adjourned the case to April 22 for the arraignment of Turaki.
