An Abuja lawyer and her co-defendant face a forgery case but secure ₦30m bail at FCT High Court over alleged impersonation of SAN Awa Kalu.
The forgery case involving Abuja-based lawyer Ibitade Bukola and her co-defendant, Barrister Victor Giwa, has taken a new turn as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Apo granted them bail in the sum of ₦30 million.
The duo are standing trial for alleged forgery and impersonation of a respected Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Awa Kalu.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie granted bail to the second defendant with strict conditions.
The judge ordered that Bukola must provide two sureties in like sum, both of whom must be civil servants not below Grade Level 16, residing within Abuja, and able to provide verifiable addresses and valid identification.
Additionally, the defendant was instructed to deposit her international passport with the court to prevent any attempt to leave the country. Until all bail conditions are fully met, the judge ordered that she remain in Suleja Correctional Facility.
Justice Onwuegbuzie clarified that granting bail does not mean the court believes the defendant is innocent; rather, it ensures that the accused can prepare adequately for trial without obstruction.
He emphasized that bail is a constitutional right and should only be denied when there is substantial proof that a defendant poses a flight risk or intends to interfere with justice.
During the bail hearing, counsel to the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, passionately urged the court to grant his client temporary freedom.
He argued that his client, being a practicing lawyer with deep roots in the legal community, has no reason to flee the country or evade trial.
Aboje stressed that the allegations were bailable offences and that denying bail would unfairly affect her reputation and professional standing.
He further submitted that his client was fully prepared to comply with all bail conditions imposed by the court, adding that detention without conviction would contradict the fundamental principles of justice and human rights enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.
In opposition, Erisco Asaph, the prosecuting counsel, strongly objected to the bail application, relying on Sections 37 and 115 of the Evidence Act.
He argued that granting bail at this stage would not serve the interest of justice due to the seriousness of the forgery case.
According to Asaph, the allegations involve deliberate falsification of legal documents and impersonation of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, offences that directly question the ethics of the legal profession.
The prosecutor maintained that the defendants might attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released.
He urged the court to reject the bail plea and allow the defendants to remain in custody while the prosecution continues its investigation.
After considering both arguments, Justice Onwuegbuzie ruled in favour of the defence, noting that the prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence that the defendants would abscond or obstruct the trial process. He described the prosecution’s fears as speculative and lacking in merit.
“Bail cannot be denied based on assumptions or suspicions,” the judge ruled.
“The purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused in court during trial, not to punish before conviction.”
The ruling was received with mixed reactions among legal observers, who described the decision as a balanced application of the law.
Many agreed that the judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role as a defender of constitutional rights, even in high-profile cases like this forgery case.
The court also reiterated that the sureties must be of proven integrity, adding that the bail conditions were deliberately stringent to prevent any misuse of the judicial process. The defendant’s passport, once surrendered, will remain in the court’s custody until the completion of the trial.
The forgery case has sparked intense discussions within the legal community due to the personalities involved and the gravity of the accusations.
Legal experts say the matter underscores the urgent need to uphold ethics within the Nigerian Bar, especially when allegations of professional misconduct arise.
According to analysts, impersonating a Senior Advocate of Nigeria is a serious violation that undermines the credibility of the justice system.
If proven, such conduct could attract not only criminal penalties but also disciplinary sanctions from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
Meanwhile, the prosecution has vowed to pursue the case vigorously, claiming that it possesses enough documentary evidence and witness testimonies to establish its claims beyond reasonable doubt.
The defence, however, insists that the charges are fabricated and politically motivated, arguing that the defendants are innocent and victims of professional rivalry.
As the forgery case continues, legal practitioners and the general public are closely monitoring developments.
Many view it as a test of the judiciary’s resolve to deliver impartial justice, regardless of the social or professional standing of those involved.
The case has been adjourned to October 30, 2025, for continuation of trial, during which the prosecution is expected to present its first set of witnesses and documentary evidence. Both defendants are expected to appear in person.
Ultimately, this forgery case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between protecting public interest and ensuring the fundamental rights of accused persons under Nigerian law.
It highlights the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, especially in cases that question the moral integrity of legal practitioners entrusted with upholding the law.
More news at ireport247news
About The Author
