By Amos Aar
A MAKURDI Chief Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction over the failure of the prosecution in concluding investigation and provide evidence in an alleged defamation suit against Mr. Henry Ibya, the Benue State correspondent of Aljazirah Newspaper
Presiding Chief Magistrate, Mr Kelvin Mbanogun, who addressed both parties during Tuesday’s proceedings, questioned the delay in the case and criticised the prosecutorial lapses.
“Prosecutor, let’s not go into an issue that will spark so many issues. First of all, defaming the character of the Commissioner of Police, I wanted to strike out this FIR that day. What saved the FIR was cyberstalking and nothing more. From April till now, do you have any evidence to show that you have forwarded the investigated case file?” he queried.
The case emanates from a petition submitted by Mr. Terna Abuul, Director of ICT at the Moses Orshio Adasu University, Makurdi (MOAUM), who had accused Mr. Ibya of publishing false and injurious content against him online.
Acting on the petition, Benue State Commissioner of Police charged Mr. Ibya to court on allegations including defamation, cyberstalking, and injurious falsehood.
However, during Tuesday’s mention of the case, the complainant was absent. Prosecuting counsel MT Testim, who held brief for BN Iorhen, informed the court that the investigation was still ongoing and requested an adjournment.
Defence counsel, Barr. Tom Uja, strongly opposed the request for more time. “I frown at the reasons for seeking an adjournment – that the investigation is ongoing. Why charge the case to court when investigation has not yet been completed?” Uja asked, stressing that the absence of the complainant indicated a lack of seriousness.
Outside the courtroom, Uja told reporters that the continued delay appeared to be a tactic aimed at harassing the defendant.
“Normally, people who take their complaints to the police do so not because they want justice, but to punish the suspect.
“And when the person refuses to cooperate or waive his rights, they rush to court — not for justice, but to keep him in court permanently,” the lawyer said.
The defence counsel added that he had prayed the court to compel the prosecution to provide the evidence. “If by the next adjourned date, they are still not ready, I will apply for the matter to be struck out,” Uja warned.
In response, the prosecutor challenged the defence’s position, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the first place. He also accused the defence counsel of inconsistency in his submissions.
“The defence counsel is ascending and descending at the same time. His first word was that he is not opposing the application before coming back to make an application for the matter to be adjourned for hearing, in a case that the court does not have the jurisdiction,” he submitted.
The matter was adjourned to August 19, 2025 for further mention.
