Court Sets June 18 for Trial of Factional PDP Chairman

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has scheduled June 18, 2026, for the commencement of trial against Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former Minister, who is also identified as a factional chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Justice Peter Kekemeke fixed the date after dismissing a preliminary application by Turaki's counsel challenging the competence of the charge, in adherence to Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. Turaki faces a one-count charge of allegedly giving false information to the Inspector-General of Police, an offence punishable under Section 140 of the Penal Code Law. This development underscores the ongoing legal scrutiny of high-profile political figures in Nigeria and highlights critical procedural aspects of criminal litigation under the ACJA.

The Nigerian legal landscape continues to witness significant developments, particularly concerning the accountability of political figures. In a recent and notable instance, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has set June 18, 2026, as the trial commencement date for Mr. Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN, a former Minister and prominent figure within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). This decision, rendered by Justice Peter Kekemeke, follows a period of preliminary legal skirmishes and sets the stage for a high-profile criminal proceeding.

The case against Mr. Turaki, which involves a charge of giving false information to the Inspector-General of Police, is particularly pertinent for legal practitioners. It not only highlights the application of specific provisions of the Penal Code Law but also brings into sharp focus the procedural mandates of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, especially concerning interlocutory applications. The political context, with Mr. Turaki identified as a “factional chairman” amidst ongoing leadership disputes within the PDP, adds another layer of complexity and public interest to the proceedings.

This article will delve into the background of the charges, the relevant legal framework, and the procedural implications of the court’s decision to proceed with the trial. It aims to provide legal professionals with a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles at play and the potential ramifications for similar cases involving public figures in Nigeria.

Mr. Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, previously served as the Minister of Special Duties and Inter-governmental Affairs from 2013 to 2015. His current legal challenge at the FCT High Court is distinct from an earlier, widely reported case where he was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in 2020 before the Federal High Court, Abuja, on a 16-count charge of alleged unlawful and criminal misappropriation of funds amounting to N715 million. The present matter before Justice Kekemeke pertains to a one-count charge filed by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP).

The charge alleges that Mr. Turaki, on or about October 5, 2022, gave false information to the IGP through a petition written on his letterhead against one Saidu Mohammed Mainasara. The prosecution contends that this act was committed with the intent to deploy the IGP’s lawful powers to the injury or annoyance of Mainasara, an offence punishable under Section 140 of the Penal Code Law. The FCT High Court, established under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), possesses the requisite criminal jurisdiction to hear and determine such proceedings involving offences committed within the Federal Capital Territory.

Adding to the complexity is Mr. Turaki's designation as a “factional chairman” of the Peoples Democratic Party. The PDP has been embroiled in protracted leadership crises, with various factions vying for control. While the criminal charge is independent of these internal party disputes, the high public profile of the defendant and his political affiliations inevitably draw significant attention to the judicial process. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently dismissed a Turaki-led appeal in a PDP leadership dispute, a development that has been noted to potentially trigger further internal party instability.

The decision by Justice Peter Kekemeke to fix a trial date for Kabiru Turaki, while rejecting a preliminary application to quash the charge, underscores a critical procedural aspect governed by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. Defence counsel, Abdulaziz Ibrahim (SAN), had sought an immediate ruling on an application challenging the competence of the charge, arguing that it disclosed no prima facie case and constituted an abuse of court process.

However, the prosecution, led by Usman Rabiu, successfully invoked Section 396(2) of the ACJA 2015. This pivotal section mandates that where an objection is raised to a charge or information, the court shall not rule on the objection until the final judgment in the case. The purpose of this provision is to prevent undue delays in criminal trials caused by interlocutory appeals on preliminary matters, thereby promoting the speedy dispensation of justice, which is a core objective of the ACJA. Justice Kekemeke, in his ruling, affirmed the mandatory nature of Section 396(2) and held that the defendant would not suffer any injustice by proceeding to trial.

The specific charge against Mr. Turaki, giving false information to a public officer with intent to cause harm or annoyance, is an offence under Section 140 of the Penal Code Law. For the prosecution to secure a conviction, they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Turaki knowingly provided false information to the IGP and that he did so with the specific intent to cause injury or annoyance to Saidu Mohammed Mainasara. The element of intent is crucial and often presents a significant challenge for the prosecution in such cases. The trial will involve the presentation of evidence, including the petition itself and testimony regarding its contents and the circumstances surrounding its submission. The prosecution is expected to call a sole witness to open its case.

Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Turaki is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a former Minister, coupled with his role as a “factional chairman” of a major political party, adds a layer of public and political scrutiny to the trial. While the legal process is meant to be impartial, the implications of such a trial for political accountability and the perception of justice in Nigeria are considerable. The granting of bail to Mr. Turaki in the sum of N100 million, with a surety who is a SAN of not less than 20 years' practice or a lawyer of over 40 years' practice, reflects the seriousness with which the court views the matter, even for a bailable offence.

The impending trial of Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN, before the FCT High Court on charges of giving false information, represents a significant moment in Nigeria's ongoing efforts to uphold the rule of law, particularly concerning public and political figures. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a practical demonstration of the application of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, specifically Section 396(2), which prioritises the expeditious conduct of criminal trials by deferring rulings on preliminary objections until final judgment.

Practitioners should closely observe the trial's progression, particularly how the prosecution establishes the elements of the offence under Section 140 of the Penal Code Law and how the defence navigates the procedural strictures of the ACJA. The outcome will not only have direct implications for Mr. Turaki but will also contribute to the jurisprudence surrounding criminal procedure and political accountability in Nigeria. It reinforces the principle that no individual, regardless of their political standing or professional accolades, is above the law, and that the judicial system is committed to ensuring justice is dispensed without undue delay.