Media Talk Africa: Latest Headlines in Politics, Business, Sports, and More

A prominent clergyman from the House on the Rock, Abuja, Uche Aigbe, who is currently standing trial before a Zuba Magistrate Court on charges of illegal possession of firearms, has decided to seek a judicial review of his ongoing trial.

According to the police, the clergyman was allegedly seen brandishing an AK-47 rifle in a video that went viral on Sunday, February 12, while delivering a sermon on the church’s altar.

Aigbe, along with two other individuals named Olakunle Ogunleye and Promise Ukachukwu, were brought before Senior Magistrate Mohammed Ismail at the Zuba court by the Commissioner of Police in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

The three individuals have been charged with three counts, which include possession of prohibited firearms, inciting disturbance, and aiding and abetting the illegal possession of firearms. These charges are in violation of Section 3 of the Firearms Act, Cap F28 of the federation.

Additionally, Aigbe is accused of making incendiary statements with the intent to cause a breach of peace, which contravenes Section 114 of the Penal Code Act and carries the same section’s punishment.

Following the prosecution’s conclusion of its case, the defense counsel made a no-case submission, which the court subsequently dismissed on August 10.

The court, in response, ordered the embattled pastor to present his defense in the case with the reference number CR/06/2023.

However, due to a stay of proceedings order granted by Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the FCT High Court in Maitama, the case was unable to proceed today.

The defendants obtained the stay of proceedings order after filing for a judicial review, questioning the Magistrate Court’s decision to require them to present their defense.

Pastor Aigbe and the other defendants claimed in their notice of judicial review that the Magistrate Court lacks jurisdiction to preside over the matter.

Furthermore, they argued that the prosecution failed to provide them with the necessary evidence to support the case against them.

They also expressed their dissatisfaction with the magistrate court’s directive to present their defense.

Consequently, they have requested the High Court to review the lower court’s decision.

When the case was called at the lower court, Senior Magistrate Ismail expressed his displeasure with the defendants’ counsel for misrepresenting the facts of the proceedings in their notice of judicial review filed before the High Court.

Ismail emphasized his neutrality in the matter and stated that the defense should have accurately presented the facts of the case before his court instead of misrepresenting them in front of the high court.

However, he assured that the Magistrate Court would respond appropriately to the defendants’ notice of judicial review and forward its record of proceedings to the High Court.