A 37-year-old man, Mr. Biodun Baba, was yesterday arraigned at an Ilorin Magistrates’ Court, Kwara State, for allegedly denigrating the person of Senate President Bukola Saraki on the social media.
The offences, according to the complainant, border on criminal act, incitement, disturbance of public peace and injurious falsehood.
The arraignment followed a complaint by Alhaji Jimoh Adesina to the Chamber of S. I. Solagberu and Co. Ilorin.
Adesina, the Kwara South chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), accused Baba of printing or engraving a matter known to be defamatory.
The offences, according to the Judicial (NR) Form two issued by the court, were contrary to sections 113, 114, 393 and 394 of the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria and sections 883 and 204 of the Criminal Code Act.
When the case was called, counsel to the complainant, Solagberu, told the court that his client wrote him a letter to withdraw the case.
Solagberu, who read the letter, said he received it on July 26.
The lawyer cited Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 41,
Laws of the Federation 2004 to support the application for withdrawal.
He said the instruction of the complainant to withdraw the case followed intervention by well-meaning Nigerians.
According to the letter, the Ilorin Emirate Traditional Council, traditional institutions from communities, party loyalists and supporters intervened in the matter.
Solagberu urged the court to grant his application for withdrawal of the case.
Counsel to the accused, Mr. Sambo Muritala, in his reply to the oral application to withdraw the case, said his client would ordinarily not object to the complainant’s letter to withdraw.
Muritala said in a situation of non-compoundable offence, it is safer for the complainant’s lawyer to make proper application before the court and support it by a copious affidavit.
He said: “Coming by way of proper application and affidavit will demonstrate the wish of the complainant to compound the said non-compoundable offence,” adding that this would help the court in future.
Muritala submitted that the complaint of the complainant was an abuse of court process and frivolous.
“The court will be properly armed to give consequential order, which is the dismissal of the case,” he added.
Responding to the accused counsel’s submission, Solagberu argued that the complainant’s action was proper and not an abuse of court process.
He said the suit was not a civil matter to warrant deposing to an affidavit.
Solagberu said: “There is nothing in the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Procedure Code that enjoins a complainant to depose to an affidavit before a case is withdrawn from the court.”
He added that the complainant’s letter before the court has satisfied the conditions “for withdrawal of cases of this nature.”
“If a party says he wants to withdraw in a criminal case, the court should use its instrumentality to assist the parties to withdraw.”
The magistrate adjourned the matter till August 3 for ruling on the application.