FCT High Court declines to be “stampeded” as former Humanitarian Affairs Minister challenges arrest warrant at the Court of Appeal while remaining absent from proceedings.
By A1NEWS International – July 2, 2026
ABUJA, Nigeria — The planned arraignment of former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, Sadiya Umar Farouq, suffered another setback on Thursday after the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court expressed dissatisfaction with her continued absence from court despite an existing bench warrant for her arrest.
Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, sitting at the Apo Division of the FCT High Court, openly questioned the failure of the former minister to appear before the court and faulted her legal team for offering no explanation for her absence during proceedings.
The court eventually adjourned the matter until September 21, 2026, for the arraignment of the former minister alongside her co-defendants.
The case is one of several high-profile corruption prosecutions arising from investigations into the management of public funds under the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
EFCC Charges Former Minister and Two Others
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed criminal charges against Sadiya Umar Farouq together with Bashir Nura Alkali and Sani Nafiu Rabiu over allegations linked to money laundering and financial misconduct.
Although the detailed counts are yet to be formally read because the arraignment has not taken place, the prosecution has insisted that all defendants must first appear before the court before proceedings can commence.
Thursday’s hearing was expected to mark the formal arraignment of the defendants.
Background: Arrest Warrant and Wanted Declaration
The latest courtroom development follows months of legal disputes over the former minister’s refusal to appear before the court.
On April 16, 2026, Justice Onwuegbuzie issued a bench warrant for Umar Farouq’s arrest after the prosecution, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Rotimi Jacobs, informed the court that the former minister had failed to honour court summons despite being served through substituted means as earlier ordered.
Following the court’s directive, the EFCC subsequently declared Umar Farouq wanted on May 9, 2026, in connection with the criminal proceedings.
Her legal team later approached the court seeking to set aside the warrant.
However, on June 15, the court dismissed that application, insisting that the arrest warrant remained valid and fixed July 2 for the arraignment of all defendants.
Fresh Appeal Filed at the Court of Appeal
When the matter was called on Thursday, Umar Farouq was once again absent from court.
Her counsel, Okpeseyi Oladipo (SAN), informed the court that new developments had occurred since the previous adjournment.
He disclosed that the former minister had filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court’s refusal to vacate the warrant of arrest issued against her.
According to the defence, the appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CR/864/2026, was filed on July 1 alongside an application seeking to stay further proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.
Counsel urged the trial court to take note of the pending application.
Lawyers representing the second and third defendants indicated they had no objection to the application.
Prosecution Opposes Stay of Proceedings
The prosecution strongly opposed the application.
Lead prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), argued that the former minister’s lawyer ought to have first explained to the court why his client failed to honour the court’s summons before raising procedural applications.
Jacobs expressed concern that no apology or justification was offered for Umar Farouq’s continued absence despite an existing warrant for her arrest.
He further argued that the application seeking to stay proceedings was contrary to Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which generally prohibits courts from entertaining applications for stay of proceedings in criminal matters.
According to him, the appeal concerns only the refusal to set aside the arrest warrant and does not affect the substantive criminal charges pending before the High Court.
He maintained that the filing of the appeal should not prevent the court from proceeding with the criminal case.
Judge Criticises Defence’s Conduct
In a strongly worded response, Justice Onwuegbuzie criticised the defence for failing to explain why the first defendant was absent from court.
The judge observed that the court could not be dictated to by any party or be compelled to suspend proceedings merely because an appeal had been filed.
He stated that the submissions made by the defence appeared to suggest how the court should exercise its discretion, a position the court was unwilling to accept.
Justice Onwuegbuzie stressed that judicial authority must be respected and that litigants are expected to comply with court processes while pursuing available legal remedies.
Case Adjourned to September
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court adjourned the matter until September 21, 2026, for the arraignment of all defendants.
The existing warrant of arrest against the former minister remains in force unless set aside by a competent appellate court.
Legal Significance
The latest development highlights the procedural tension between a defendant’s constitutional right to challenge judicial decisions on appeal and the obligation to comply with orders of a trial court.
Legal analysts note that while appeals against interlocutory decisions are permissible, criminal proceedings are generally expected to continue unless an appellate court specifically orders otherwise.
The case is also expected to test the application of Section 306 of the ACJA, a provision enacted to discourage delays in criminal trials through repeated applications for stay of proceedings.
With the arraignment once again postponed, the prosecution of former Minister Sadiya Umar Farouq remains stalled as legal battles continue over the validity of the bench warrant issued against her. As the Court of Appeal considers her challenge, the FCT High Court has made clear that it expects compliance with its orders and will not allow procedural applications to unduly frustrate the administration of criminal justice. The matter is now scheduled to resume on September 21, 2026.
Leave a Reply