By Achadu Gabriel, Kaduna
As the case of ‘defamation’ between The Union Newspapers and Kaduna state’s governor, Nasir El-Rufai, rages on, the presiding judge, Justice Mairo A. Muhammed, of Kaduna high court sitting in Kaduna, said she will consider application to issue arrest warrant for the chairman of Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, in the next adjournment for refusing to appear before the court for subpoena.
Justice Muhammed disclosed this Tuesday, while ruling on the application made by representative of the Counsel to The Union Newspapers, Barr. A.H. Andrew, on the case of defamation between the newspapers and Nasir El-Rufai, before the court.
Speaking to journalists at the end of the sitting in Kaduna, Barr. Andrew said the case came up on Tuesday for defence, and the defendants supposed to open their defence.
He said there a letter was served on CCB to appear in court and tender certain documents as part of defence on Tuesday.
According to him, from the record of registry as testified before court, the CCB was duly served with the subpoena on 24th October, 2017, but there was correspondents before the court to explain the reason for their absent on Tuesday.
He also stated that counsel to the plaintiff, Barr. A.U. Mustapha, SAN, sent a letter to the court seeking for adjournment for further date on ground that he was attending a case at Appeal Court in Abuja division.
Barr. Andrew said, while they conceded to the adjournment, the defendants, however, made application pursuant to Section 353, sub-2 of the Evidence Act 2011, as amended, that the chairman of CCB be apprehended.
“And that the court should issue an arrest warrant to that effect, because there was no appearance, which constitutes a violation of order of court. A subpoena is an order of court, and order of courts is meant to be obeyed,” he said.
He however stated that, the presiding judge, in consideration of the application, adjourned that the court will consider the application in the next sitting scheduled for 11th December, 2017, even as Andrew said that the counsel and witness were present in court for defense.
On whether he suspected any conspiracy with the absent of the CCB and plaintiff counsel in court on Tuesday, at the same time, the defendants disagreed.