By Our Reporter, With Agency Reports
THE FEDERAL High Court in Abuja on Tuesday ordered the remand of Ishaq Muhammed at the Kuje Correctional Centre following an application by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) over his alleged failure to attend trial in a cyberbullying case involving Senator Shehu Umar.
Justice Rita Offili-Ajumogobia made the order after granting an application by the prosecution counsel, David Kaswe, who urged the court to enforce a bench warrant earlier issued against Muhammed for his absence from proceedings.
The judge ordered that Muhammed remain in custody pending the hearing and determination of his motion seeking to set aside the bench warrant.
She adjourned the case until Nov. 24 for the hearing of the prosecution’s application to revoke the bail granted to another defendant, Ahmed Abdulrahman, an Abuja-based lawyer, as well as Muhammed’s motion and continuation of trial.
The AGF is prosecuting Muhammed, Abdulrahman and three others in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/526/2025 over allegations of defamation, cybercrime and other offences involving Umar, the serving senator representing Bauchi South Senatorial District and the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) governorship candidate in Bauchi State for the 2027 election.
Abdulrahman is the first defendant, while Daure David, Muhammed, Abdulrashid Musa and Nasir Abubakar are listed as the second to fifth defendants, respectively.
Justice Offili-Ajumogobia had, on Sept. 29, issued a bench warrant for Muhammed’s arrest following his failure to appear in court for trial, following an oral application by the prosecution.
When the case was called on Tuesday, however, Muhammed was present in court, while Abdulrahman was absent.
Kaswe, an Assistant Director at the Federal Ministry of Justice, told the court that the prosecution had received a letter informing it of Abdulrahman’s absence. He also said another letter was received concerning David, who was reportedly indisposed following an accident.
The prosecution counsel, however, challenged the medical report submitted on behalf of David, arguing that it emanated from a private hospital rather than a government hospital, as required by law for its admissibility.
On Abdulrahman’s absence, Kaswe said the medical report from Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, dated Nov. 3, 2026, was an afterthought intended to frustrate the prosecution’s application for bail revocation.
He argued that Abdulrahman was aware of the court proceedings and the prosecution’s intention to seek the revocation of his bail.
Kaswe further alleged that Abdulrahman had continued to commit the offences for which he was standing trial by posting defamatory messages and videos about Umar in violation of a court order.
He urged the court to discountenance the letter explaining the defendant’s absence and revoke his bail.
The prosecution counsel also reminded the court of the bench warrant issued against Muhammed on Sept. 29 and urged the judge to order his remand pending the determination of his motion to set aside the warrant, filed by his lawyer, R. A. Bamigboye.
Responding, V. Damgdem, counsel to Abdulrahman, told the court that his client was facing a medical emergency and was receiving treatment at the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital.
He said the defence was willing to subject the medical condition to investigation, adding that although the prosecution had served them with its application for bail revocation, they were still within the time allowed by law to respond to the allegations.
Similarly, Vincent Owhor, counsel to David, told the court that his client was involved in an accident in Bauchi State on Oct. 15.
Owhor argued that the court had the discretion to admit the medical report regardless of whether it was issued by a private or public hospital.
Citing Section 41(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, he submitted that a medical report issued by a qualified medical practitioner could be admitted in evidence.
He explained that David was taken to a private hospital immediately after the accident and had consistently attended previous court proceedings.
He urged the court to admit the medical report and accept his client’s explanation for his absence.
On his part, Bamigboye told the court that although a bench warrant had been issued against Muhammed to ensure his attendance, his client was already present in court.
He also said Muhammed had attended court on the previous adjourned date, although he arrived late, and was present the previous week when the court did not sit.
The lawyer said the defence had filed a motion seeking to set aside the bench warrant and urged the court to suspend its execution pending the determination of the application.
Counsel to the fourth and fifth defendants, A. A. Badmos and Hamza Dantani, respectively, did not oppose Abdulrahman’s request for an adjournment.
However, Dantani’s attempt to intervene in the prosecution’s application for Muhammed’s remand was unsuccessful.
The judge subsequently granted the prosecution’s application and ordered Muhammed’s remand at the Kuje Correctional Centre.
The case was adjourned until Nov. 24 for the hearing of the application seeking to revoke Abdulrahman’s bail, Muhammed’s motion to set aside the bench warrant and continuation of trial.
The defendants were initially prosecuted by the Inspector-General of Police in an 11-count charge filed on Oct. 6, 2025, by Anthony Egwu.
They were accused of offences bordering on cybercrime, defamation and advance fee fraud, among others.
They were arraigned on Oct. 30, 2025, and pleaded not guilty to all the charges. They were subsequently remanded at Kuje Correctional Centre before being granted bail.
In count one, the defendants were accused of conspiring in 2025 to commit cyberstalking against Senator Umar, contrary to Section 27(1)(b) and punishable under Section 21(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024.
In count three, Abdulrahman was accused of using his TikTok account, identified as “Kibanna Channel”, and YouTube channel to publish a video allegedly linking the senator to the sponsorship of banditry.
The prosecution alleged that Abdulrahman made the statement that Umar was a sponsor of banditry and called for his investigation, knowing the allegation to be false and intending to tarnish the senator’s reputation, cause public disorder and instil fear of death in him.
The alleged offence is contrary to Section 24(1)(5) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended in 2024.
The AGF took over the prosecution of the case in December 2025.
