The re-arraignment of convicted billionaire kidnapper Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, popularly known as Evans, was stalled on Thursday due to the absence of his counsel at the Lagos State High Court. The presiding judge, Justice Adenike Coker, expressed concern over the repeated delays in the trial, citing the need for expedited proceedings.
Inquiry About Evans’ Counsel
During the session, Justice Coker asked Evans about the whereabouts of his legal representative. In response, Evans admitted uncertainty, stating that he was unsure of his lawyer’s appearance. This prompted further clarification from Nelson Onyejaka, the counsel for Evans’ co-defendant, Joseph Emeka. Onyejaka informed the court that he had unsuccessfully attempted to contact Evans’ lawyer via telephone.
“My Lord, I tried his number, and it’s not going. Even this morning, I tried again, but he is not based in Lagos,” Onyejaka explained.
Evans: Charges Against the Defendants
Evans and his co-defendant face amended charges, including:
- Murder
- Attempted murder
- Conspiracy to commit felony with kidnapping
- Attempted murder
These charges are tied to high-profile kidnapping cases that date back to 2017, for which Evans gained notoriety as one of Nigeria’s most infamous criminal figures.
State Prosecutor’s Concerns
State Prosecutor Yusuf Sule expressed frustration over the repeated delays caused by Evans’ legal team. Sule reminded the court that the case has been pending since 2017 and attributed much of the delay to the first defendant’s failure to ensure consistent legal representation.
“It’s high time he gets a lawyer in Lagos or briefs another lawyer to stand in for him so the matter can go on. From the onset, the first defendant has been the one delaying this matter,” Sule stated.
He also informed the court about a pending plea bargain application submitted by Evans, though it remained unclear whether Evans intended to pursue the agreement further.
Court’s Directive and Adjournment
Justice Adenike Coker, emphasizing the need to avoid further delays, directed the prosecution to ensure that the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) is present at the next court session. She highlighted that the OPD could represent Evans if his counsel fails to appear.
“The OPD can represent the first defendant if his counsel is not present in court because the arraignment must go on at the next date of adjournment,” the judge ruled.
Justice Coker then adjourned the case to January 30, 2025, ordering Evans to ensure his lawyer’s presence on the adjourned date.
Conclusion
The court’s insistence on the continuation of proceedings reflects its commitment to justice in a case that has lingered for several years. The directive involving the OPD indicates a push to mitigate delays caused by inconsistent legal representation. As the January 2025 date approaches, all eyes will be on whether Evans secures reliable legal counsel to advance the trial.
