The trial of former Benue State Governor, Gabriel Suswam, over an alleged N3.1 billion fraud suffered another setback on Thursday after the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned proceedings following his absence from court on health grounds.
According to an official statement signed by the Head of Media and Publicity of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Dele Oyewale, Justice Peter Lifu adjourned the matter until September 25, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.
At the commencement of proceedings, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the adoption of final written addresses but disclosed that he had received a letter from counsel to the first defendant, Paul Erokoro, SAN, notifying him that both he and Suswam would be absent due to the former governor’s ill health.
Jacobs told the court that the defence counsel had requested that he seek an adjournment on account of the defendant’s health condition.
Opposing the request, the prosecution described the application as another delay in a case that has lasted more than a decade.
“We are surprised that there is a letter from the first defendant’s counsel saying he will not be in court. I should oppose this application and urge the court to allow us adopt our final written address in a case that is 11 years old, and your lordship is the fifth judge to preside over it,” Jacobs said.
While urging the court to adjourn the matter only until the following day, the prosecution also requested that Suswam participate virtually if he was unable to appear physically.
“We have seen the first defendant attending public functions. They are making a mockery of the justice system and bringing it into disrepute. My lord, I urge the court to connect him through Zoom even if he is at home,” he added.
Counsel to the second defendant, Audu Agunga, SAN, however, did not oppose the request for an adjournment, arguing that the circumstances warranted the court’s discretion in the interest of justice.
Responding, Jacobs criticised the intervention, arguing that the second defendant’s counsel had effectively assumed the role of counsel to the first defendant.
He further contended that no medical report had been presented to justify the application, adding that under Section 266 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), certain proceedings could continue in the absence of a defendant.
After listening to submissions from counsel, Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until September 25, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses by the parties.
