Again, Gov AbdulRazaq drags ex-Senate President Saraki to court over alleged defamation

The Kwara State Government has dragged former Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki, to court for allegedly using derogatory and abusive language against the governor on social media pages.

The charge, filed by the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Senior Ibrahim Sulyman, alongside the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ayoola Idowu Akande, and Assistant Chief State Counsel, B.L. Abdulsalam, contains one count of alleged criminal defamation.

Saraki, who was also a one-time governor of the state, allegedly published a provocative statement, saying Governor AbdulRahman was not educated up to secondary school level.

At today’s resumed proceedings, counsel for the governor, Chief Rafiu Oyeyemi, SAN, moved an application for the issuance of a bench warrant against the defendant (Saraki) for failing to appear in court despite being duly served with court processes.

He stated that, having fulfilled the court’s requirement of being duly served, Saraki had no excuse for not appearing in court for his arraignment to enter his plea.

Saraki’s counsel, Barrister Adebimpe Abdulmumini, SAN, urged the court to disregard the application submitted by his counterpart, asserting that his client was contesting the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

He emphasized that the issue, along with others raised in the application before the court, must be resolved before any further proceedings could commence.

Following a two-hour recess to consider the submissions of both parties on the preliminary objection and request for adjournment, the presiding judge, Justice Muritala Folorunso, ruled that the defendant was entitled to seek an adjournment.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter until July 3, 2026, for the hearing of the preliminary objection and possible arraignment of the defendant.

Part of his ruling states: “The law is firmly settled that the court should desist from prejudging a matter or an application pending before it when the same has not been heard. In other words, it is a golden rule that a court should not, in its ruling at an interlocutory stage upon the submission of counsel, make an order which will have the effect of prejudging or preempting the issue for adjudication in the substantive application. See the cases of Agbola v. FRN, AG Kwara State v. Alao, Ikumoluyi v. FRN, and Inyama v. FRN, whose citations have been given.

“Pursuant to this settled law, I will not go through the records of this court to pronounce on the sufficiency or otherwise of the service being challenged in the defendant’s application, particularly Relief 1 therein.”