Justice S. C. Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, April 30, 2026, adjourned the trial of the former Taraba State governor, Darius Dickson Ishaku, alongside a former permanent secretary in the state’s Bureau for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Bello Yero, to June 15, 2026.
The adjournment followed the announcement in court by Yero’s counsel, Samuel Fagade, of the immediate withdrawal of his services from him.
Both defendants are facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC on a 15-count charge, bordering on criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and conversion of public funds to the tune of N27 billion.
At the Thursday sitting, the trial was to continue with the prosecution’s examination-in-chief of its third witness, PW3, Taiwo Johns, but was truncated by the withdrawal announcement by counsel to the second defendant.
“I would like to bring your notice of my withdrawal of service, urging my lord to grant it. I am also aware that the second defendant has a substitute counsel,” he said.
Following the development, Justice Oriji demanded from the second defendant how he would want the court to intervene for him, to which he prayed for a long adjournment to enable him shop for a new counsel.
“I want to plead with his lordship to grant me an adjournment of four to six weeks to enable me to get legal representation. As it is now, I don’t have legal representation. I have not engaged any lawyer to represent me. Kindly permit me so that I can look for another lawyer to stand for me, for four to six weeks, so that I don’t come back and say my lord increase it for me,” he said.
While the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, did not object to the application, he, however, observed that the counsel to second defendant, who withdrew his services was present in court at the last adjourned date when the prosecution began to lead the PW3 in his examination-in-chief, noting that the counsel did not give the minimum three days’ resignation notice to the court as required by law.
“When we called our PW3, this counsel was there, representing the second defendant; he should have at least given the court three days’ notice according to the stipulation of the law,” he said.
Speaking further, he disclosed that the second defendant was not sincere in his claim of not having a legal replacement. “The second defendant came with a lawyer, and the lawyer actually wrote his name on the Cause List and then cancelled it when the second defendant wanted to use the opportunity to get an adjournment. They came to this court, and the lawyer is in the court hearing me. So, your lordship should not grant the luxury of six weeks. Your lordship should not grant it, particularly for the second defendant,” he said.
The new counsel, who then had to unveil himself, informed the court that he had begun a discussion with the second defendant but that no conclusion had been reached yet.
Justice Oriji granted the request of the second defendant’s counsel to withdraw his services from his client and adjourned the matter till June 15, July 2, 7, 13,14 and 15, 2926 for continuation of trial.
