‘N400m fraud’: Court faults IGP’s motion seeking substituted service against Andy Uba

A federal high court (FHC) in Abuja has faulted a motion by the inspector-general of police (IGP) seeking substituted service in the charge filed against Andy Uba, a former senator representing Anambra south.

Uba is facing a two-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/538/2024 alongside two others —  Crystal Uba and Benjamin Etu.

When the matter was called on Thursday, M. Anthony, who appeared for the prosecution, said he was holding brief for another counsel.

However, Inyang Ekwo, presiding judge, said Anthony being a government lawyer, cannot hold brief for another government official.

“You cannot hold brief for a government officer in court,” the judge said.

The judge also said Anthony had announced an appearance at the last court session on November 13, 2024.

“You were in court on the 13th of November, 2024 with Mohammed Gajo,” he said.

Moving on to the main issue before the court, Anthony said there is a motion ex parte seeking leave for substituted service of the charge and other processes on the 1st to 3rd defendants.

When the judge asked him under what law was the motion ex parte brought, he said their application was predicated on order 6, rule 5(b), d(I), 5(e), and 8 of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.

Ekwo, however, told the lawyer that filing the motion should be pursuant to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 and not civil procedures.

“You have to go and put your house in order,” the judge said, and adjourned the matter until February 18 for hearing of the motion ex-parte.

The prosecution has listed six witnesses to testify against the former lawmaker and other defendants in the suit.

On November 13, Anthony told the court that the defendants had been evading the service of the court documents despite being given administrative bail.

He said the defendants obtained a fundamental rights enforcement order which had prevented the police from bringing them to court.

The lawyer claimed it was not until after the order was lifted that the defendants were finally charged before the court.