Mike Igini libel suit: Lawyers absent in court over scarcity of new naira note

By Editor

Feb 14, 2023

As scarcity of the new naira notes bits harder in the country, counsel to the second and third defendants in the Mike Igini's N5billion suit against the Edo State Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, Col. David Imuse (Rtd) could not come to court due to their inability to get the naira notes.

The counsel are Barrister Femi Jarete for the African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc, publishers of the Nigerian Tribune and Barrister Ogbodo, for the sun Newspapers Limited.

Mike Igini, the immediate past Resident Electoral Commission (REC) in charge of Akwa-Ibom had in 2020  dragged Imuse, the State chairman of APC, before the Edo State High Court in Benin City for alleged libel.

When the case was called for hearing yesterday, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN) while announcing his appearance for Femi Jarete counsel for the African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc told the court that the counsel could not make it to the court as a result of their inability to get new naira notes.

Onwuenwunor, also in an interview with newsmen immediately after the court said " it was unfortunate that counsel to the second and third   defendants were not in the court.

"The second defendant's counsel  sent a word that they had difficulties coming to Benin on the account of the present economic situation in the country", he said.

However, the plaintiff continue his case by calling on Ero Anthony as a second witness.

DailyMonitorngr reports that the former REC had at the last sitting concluded his evidence on oath in the case.

No sooner had the plaintiff counsel called the witness to witness box for examination than  Austin Osarenkhoe counsel to the first defendant raised objection to his statement on oath, describing it as "documentary hearsay", particularly paragraphs 5 to 10 of the statement on oath. 

Osarenkhoe argued that the source and the information of the facts deposed to in the paragraphs were not within the personal knowledge of the witness.

According to him, " this is documentary hearsay and it's not admissible", even as he cited sections of the Evidence Act to back his submission. 

But countering the objection, Onwuenwunor described the defendant's counsel objection as strange and contradicted the sections of the Evidence Act cited by the 1st defendant's Counsel. 

He contended that there is a slight difference between ordinary affidavit and witness statement on oath, stressing that once a witness statement on oath is adopted it becomes the evidence of witness in court. 

Onwuenwunor, further told the court that the new rules of Edo State High Court, Order 33 rule 3 has intervened and done away with the old position of the law that was standing against Justice as cited by the 1st defendant's Counsel. 

In her short ruling, Justice Vestee 

Eboreimen ruled that the contentious statement on oath be allowed, that at judgment stage if is found that it ought not have been admitted, it will be expunged from court records. 

She, however, adjourned the matter to March 23rd, 2023 for continuation of hearing.