In a dramatic turn of events at the Kwara Chief Magistrates’ Court in Ilorin, two lawyers representing Abdulazeez Adegbola, also known as Tani Olohun, who is facing trial for alleged defamation, found themselves in a public dispute over the right to present a motion in the case.
According to The PUNCH, this open disagreement between the legal representatives brought the proceedings to a halt, prompting Chief Magistrate Mohammed Ibrahim to adjourn the hearing to a later date.
PUNCH METRO reported that Abdulazeez Adegbola, known as Tani Olohun, is currently facing a five-count charge, which includes allegations of criminal conspiracy, inciting public disturbance, disturbance of public peace, criminal defamation of character, and intentional insult.
The prosecution has argued that these charges are in violation of sections 97, 210, 392, and 114 of the Penal Code Law of Nigeria. Tani Olohun entered a plea of not guilty to these charges and was subsequently denied bail.
During the court proceedings on Friday, one of Tani Olohun’s lawyers, Mufutau Olobi, formally announced his representation and introduced Ademola Bank as his co-counsel in the case.
Olobi informed the court that they had filed two motions – one challenging the court’s jurisdiction and another seeking bail for their client.
Olobi said, “The counsel have agreed that the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court to conduct the trial in the case be withdrawn forthwith.”
While he was still speaking, Bank stood up and said that Olobi was not competent to withdraw the motion since he was not the person who filed it before the court.
“Your worship, I want to tell the court that my learned colleague is not the right person to withdraw the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court in the trial of the case from the court. I filed the motion before the court and I should be the right person to withdraw it.
“He is just coming into the case. He should allow me to withdraw the motion before the court.
However, Olobi claimed that as the most senior counsel defending the defendant in the case, he was entitled to request the withdrawal of the petition.
The chief magistrate, on the other hand, advised the two lawyers to seek understanding and reach an arrangement in accordance with the law.
The matter was later deferred until October 30 for the hearing to resume.
