Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, February 26, 2026, in the trial of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, stopped a defence counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN, from using an unauthorised witness.
Omotosho held that a subpoenaed witness, Abdulkareem Ibrahim Ozi, was already a prosecution witness in the matter as Pw2 and cannot be called at the instance of the court to stand as a defence witness.
“What I know is that, a witness having testified in court, even though he is a witness of the court, having been cross-examined by the other party, he can’t be called to give evidence without reason. This procedure is strange and not known to our jurisprudence. However, the defence is not foreclosed to call him for cross- examination” he said.
Earlier in the proceedings, the matter which was slated for the defendant to enter his defence had the defence counsel pray the court that the subpoenaed witness should testify as a defence witness even though he had been called by the prosecution.
“I don’t mind taking an oral application for the witness who is on a subpoena before the court. There are documents to which he is the maker that deserve clarification that will help the defence, like PwB 1,2,3″ he said
However, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, objected, stating that the process is not only strange but an abuse of court process.
“ My lord, I am a prosecutor and not a persecutor who represents everyone. On November 12, 2024, I led evidence with this witness, as Pw2, who brought documents, was cross-examined, and the court discharged him. The learned counsel sought a judicial decision to call this witness; this process is not only strange but an abuse of court process. The defence has not told us what aspect of the exhibit needs cross-examination. When we were conducting our case, we gave them documents in advance, so which documents are they referring to so that we are not taken by surprise?”, he said
Justice Omotosho discharged the witness from the witness box, further stating that if the defence wanted to use him as their witness, they should request properly in writing by way of an application for notice, not using him at the instance of the court by way of subpoena.
Responding, defence counsel told the court that they have closed their case.
The matter was adjourned to April 13, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.
