The arraignment of five former senior police officers before a Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama on charges of alleged age falsification failed to hold on Thursday following their absence in court, owing to the inability of the police to effect personal service on them.

Thursday’s development marked the third time the scheduled arraignment before Justice Yusuf Halilu had failed to proceed.

The defendants are: AIG Idowu Owohunwa (Rtd), CP Benneth Igweh (Rtd), CP Ukachi Peter Opara (Rtd), DCP Obo Ukam Obo (Rtd) and ACP Simon A. Lough (Rtd).

They are facing a 14-count filed against them by the Inspector-General of Police.

In the charge marked CR/353/2025, Owohunwa, Igweh, Opara, Obo and Lough are accused of conspiracy, age falsification and forgery, among other offences.

READ ALSO:Police Ask Court To Issue Arrest Warrant Against Andy Uba Over Alleged N400m Job Scam

One of the charges alleges that the defendants, who enlisted in the Nigeria Police Force in 1999, conspired to falsify their ages in order to remain in service beyond the mandatory retirement age, in contravention of Section 97(1)(2) of the Penal Code Law.

Another charge states that they falsified and altered their ages and official documents with the intention of illegally prolonging their service, thereby benefiting from office privileges contrary to the Public Service Rules of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an act said to amount to cheating under Section 324 of the Penal Code Law.

The defendants are also accused of making fraudulent declarations, submitting falsified documents to police records, and dishonestly deposing to false claims in court proceedings, contrary to Sections 158(1), 178 and 366 of the Penal Code Law.

At the last sitting, Justice Halilu had ordered the Inspector-General of Police to do everything within his power to produce the defendants in court for their arraignment.

That order followed complaints by the prosecution counsel, ACP Rimamsomte Ezekiel, that the defendants had failed to appear despite allegedly being served with the charge.

However, when the matter came up on Thursday, the defendants were again absent. Ezekiel expressed disappointment, noting that despite assurances given by their counsel, Goddy Uche (SAN), at the previous sitting that they would attend, they had failed to do so.

READ ALSO:Court Remands Man Who Beat Wife In Viral Video

He further informed the court that investigators made repeated attempts to serve the defendants at their known residential addresses, only to discover they had relocated. Ezekiel said he also sent a soft copy of the charge to their WhatsApp platforms, yet they did not appear.

He therefore urged the court to issue a bench warrant against them pursuant to Section 266(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

However, defence counsel, Terkaa Aondo (SAN), opposed the application, insisting that the defendants had not been personally served with the charges.

“My Lord, up till now, the defendants have not been served with a copy of the charge. This is a criminal matter which requires personal service, not substituted service. Until the defendants are properly before the court, any request for a bench warrant is premature.

“The police have the apparatus to bring the defendants to court. If they could arrest Nnamdi Kanu in Kenya and Omoyele Sowore in Nigeria, why can they not arrest these defendants and bring them before the court? I urge Your Lordship to refuse the request and order the prosecution to do the needful,” Aondo submitted.

In his ruling, Justice Halilu agreed with the defence counsel that criminal charges require personal service on the defendants. He also observed that the police possess the means to arrest and bring the defendants to court for their arraignment.

READ ALSO:Court Bars CCETC From Entering Ossiomo Land, Using Its Property

On the prosecution’s request for a bench warrant, the judge held that such an order was premature, since the defendants had not been properly brought before the court.

“You granted them bail on self-recognition. It remains your responsibility to ensure they are brought before the court to take their plea. You are the prosecutor. You should do all within your powers to ensure that the defendants attend court on the next adjourned date for arraignment,” Justice Halilu ruled.

He further directed the defence counsel to also ensure the appearance of the defendants at the next sitting.

The case was adjourned until November 17 for arraignment.
(PUNCH)