A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has openly criticised defence tactics in the ongoing corruption trial of former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, describing them as deliberate attempts to stall proceedings.
Justice Maryann Anenih, who is presiding over the case, accused lead defence counsel, Temitayo Sonuyi, SAN, of engaging in “time-wasting antics” after he objected to the commencement of trial and insisted that the court must first determine an application challenging its jurisdiction.
Mamman and seven other defendants are facing a nine-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, and intent to defraud the Federal Government of over ₦31 billion.
Visibly displeased, Justice Anenih said she could not entertain prayers in an application she had neither seen nor read, noting that the process was not ripe for hearing because it was not properly before the court.
“I cannot come here and sit down and waste time for nothing to be done today,” the judge stated, stressing that if the defence wanted the application considered, the proper procedure should have been followed well in advance.
Sonuyi informed the court that two applications filed on December 5 and 10, 2025, were aimed at questioning the validity of the charges and the court’s jurisdiction. However, the prosecution, led by Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, countered that the second defendant had already been served with a counter-affidavit on January 6, 2026, and urged the court to proceed with trial, noting that prosecution witnesses were present.
Oyedepo suggested that the jurisdictional challenge could be taken later so as not to waste valuable court time.
In response, Sonuyi sought permission to withdraw his affidavit in reply to the counter-affidavit, telling the court he needed time to “put his house in order.”
Meanwhile, counsel to the sixth defendant, J. A. Egwaede, told the court that he was only served with the counter-affidavit in court and requested an adjournment to study it and file a response.
Justice Anenih granted the request, emphasising the need to ensure fairness, particularly to the sixth defendant, and ruled that the jurisdiction application must be heard before the trial continues.
The matter was adjourned to February 18, March 11, and March 25, 2026, for ruling on the applications and continuation of the trial.
