Kwara State Government yesterday dragged former Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, before a State High Court in Ilorin for alleged defamatory comments against Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq.
In a charge sheet containing a one-count charge, signed by the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Senior Ibrahim Sulyman, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ayoola Idowu Akande, and Assistant Chief State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, B.L. Abdulsalam, and read before the court, Dr. Saraki was accused of committing an illegal act by allegedly publishing and sharing a statement on or about April 17, 2026, on social media and in newspapers.
The statement, according to the charge sheet, contained alleged insulting, derogatory and abusive language that Governor AbdulRazaq is not educated up to secondary school level, “which you knew or ought to have known to be false, but you intentionally published the said statements in a manner to insult or provoke the Governor of Kwara State, His Excellency, Mallam AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq and the Kwara State Government, which you did in a manner likely to cause breakdown of public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 399 of the Penal Code, CAP. P4, Laws of Kwara State, 2006.”
During the court proceedings on Wednesday, the prosecution counsel, R.O. Balogun, said that the matter was for arraignment and prayed the court to issue a bench warrant against Dr. Saraki to compel his appearance in court.
The counsel said the court should discountenance the adjournment motion, adding that the matter was meant for arraignment.
“The defendant’s counsel is in court appearing for him and he should be here. We’re the prosecution and we should be in charge. He’s been duly served.
“The case should commence. There is no reason proffered by his counsel for his absence. We pray court to issue bench warrant against the defendant in line with section 138,” he argued in court.
In his counterargument, the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Jimoh Mumeen (SAN), challenged the jurisdiction of the court, saying that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction and not the State High Court.
“The defendant brought the matter here for reason best known to them,” he said, adding that his client was not properly served. “We challenge the service.”
After a two-hour recess requested by the judge to rule on the motion for preliminary objection and/or adjournment between the counsels, the court ruled that the defendant is free to ask for adjournment.
Thus, the court, presided over by Justice M.O. Folorunso, adjourned the matter for preliminary objection and arraignment till July 3, 2026.
Hammed Shittu
Follow us on: