Court refuses Sadiya Farouq’s request to set aside arrest warrant

The Federal Capital Territory High Court, Apo, Abuja, presided over by Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, recently dismissed an application by former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, Sadiya Umar Farouq, seeking to set aside a bench warrant and warrant of arrest issued against her. The warrants were initially issued due to her repeated failure to appear for arraignment on a 21-count charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), alleging criminal conspiracy, abuse of office, and diversion of public funds totaling $1.3 million and N746.7 million. The court found that Farouq had willfully absented herself without a valid reason, rejecting her medical excuses as insufficient and emphasizing the imperative of due process in criminal proceedings.

In a significant development underscoring the judiciary's resolve to ensure accountability, the Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Apo, Abuja, on Monday, June 16, 2026, refused to set aside a bench warrant and warrant of arrest previously issued against former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, Sadiya Umar Farouq. This decision by Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie marks a critical juncture in the ongoing prosecution of the former minister by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on charges bordering on alleged criminal conspiracy, abuse of office, and diversion of public funds.

The EFCC had filed a 21-count charge against Farouq, alongside two others, Bashir Nura Alkali and Sani Nafiu Mohammed, involving substantial sums of $1.3 million and N746.7 million. The initial warrants were issued on April 16, 2026, following Farouq's repeated absence from court for her scheduled arraignment. The court's latest ruling reinforces the principle that no individual, regardless of their past public office, is above the law and must submit to judicial processes, particularly in criminal matters.

This article delves into the legal framework governing the issuance and setting aside of arrest warrants in Nigeria, analyzes the court's rationale for dismissing Farouq's application, and explores the broader implications for legal practitioners and the fight against corruption in the country.

The issuance of bench warrants and warrants of arrest in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA). The ACJA aims to promote the efficient management of criminal justice institutions, ensure the speedy dispensation of justice, and protect the rights and interests of all parties involved. Under the Act, a court is empowered to issue a warrant of arrest to compel the appearance of a defendant who fails to attend court after being duly summoned, especially in criminal proceedings where personal attendance is often mandatory.

Specifically, the ACJA provides for the general authority to issue warrants (Part 3, Sections 35-47), outlining the form, requisites, and execution of such instruments. A bench warrant, in particular, is an order issued by a judge or magistrate for the arrest of a person who has failed to appear in court when required. The purpose of these warrants is to ensure that the judicial process is not frustrated by the deliberate absence of a defendant, thereby upholding the integrity and authority of the court.

While courts possess the inherent power to set aside their own orders, this power is exercised judiciously and only upon established legal grounds. Common grounds for setting aside a court order in Nigeria include lack of jurisdiction, fraud, misrepresentation of facts, or a fundamental failure to follow due process that renders the order a nullity. An applicant seeking to set aside such an order typically bears the burden of demonstrating compelling reasons that justify the court's intervention.

In the case of *Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Sadiya Umar Farouq & Ors.*, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie meticulously considered the application to set aside the bench warrant and warrant of arrest. The core of the defence's argument rested on medical grounds, with counsel tendering a medical report alleging that the former minister suffered from arthritis and heart disease, rendering her medically unfit to attend court proceedings.

However, Justice Onwuegbuzie found these excuses to be unconvincing and insufficient. He held that Farouq had willfully failed to appear before the court without a valid reason, noting that the medical report did not adequately explain why she could not attend proceedings within Nigeria, especially given the availability of adequate medical facilities in the country. The judge emphasized the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings, stressing that criminal matters demand strict compliance with due process and that the court's statutory powers to issue a bench warrant for deliberate absence are clear under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

The prosecution, led by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) for the EFCC, vehemently opposed the application, reminding the court of an undertaking made by Farouq's lead counsel, A.A. Ibrahim (SAN), to produce his client in court. This undertaking, which was not fulfilled, further weakened the defence's position and highlighted a pattern of non-compliance. The court's decision aligns with the principle that a defendant cannot unilaterally decide to absent themselves from criminal proceedings, and medical excuses must be genuinely compelling and properly substantiated to warrant an indulgence from the court. The judge's ruling effectively communicated that the court would not tolerate tactics perceived as attempts to delay justice or evade trial.

The Federal Capital Territory High Court's refusal to set aside the arrest warrant against Sadiya Umar Farouq sends a strong message regarding judicial commitment to due process and accountability in Nigeria. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the critical importance of ensuring client attendance in criminal proceedings and the high bar for medical excuses, particularly when they appear to be a strategy for delay. Counsel must advise clients that courts will rigorously scrutinize such claims and that a mere medical report, without compelling justification for non-appearance in the local jurisdiction, may be deemed insufficient.

This ruling also reinforces the powers of the court under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, to compel attendance and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. The case has been adjourned to July 2, 2026, for the arraignment of the defendants, and all eyes will be on the next steps to see how the former minister's appearance will be secured. This development serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice, especially in high-profile corruption cases, requires unwavering adherence to legal procedures from all parties involved.