The bail application of Chidiebere Justice Mark, widely known as Justice Crack, faced an unexpected setback at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday. The proceedings took a dramatic turn when two legal practitioners, Femi Balogun and Marshall Abubakar, engaged in a heated dispute over who would represent the defendant.
Background of the Case
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had scheduled May 14 for the hearing of Mark's bail request, following his arraignment by the Department of State Services (DSS) on May 4. Mark had pleaded not guilty to a three-count charge related to alleged cybercrime offenses tied to a viral video concerning the Nigerian Army.
During the initial arraignment, Abubakar, who was then Mark's lawyer, had requested an adjournment to file a bail application, which the court granted. The DSS accused Mark of circulating false information and publishing materials capable of inciting public unrest. The defendant was reportedly arrested by the Nigerian Army after posting a video and accompanying statements on his X handle, @JusticeCrack, alleging inadequate feeding of soldiers.
Courtroom Drama Unfolds
When the case was called on Thursday, Leyii Abueh, representing the Federal Ministry of Justice, informed the court that the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had taken over the prosecution from the DSS, as permitted by law. However, the focus quickly shifted to the conflict between the two lawyers.
Femi Balogun stood up to announce his appearance for Mark, stating that he had been briefed by the defendant's family. He referenced the bail application already filed. In response, Abubakar insisted that he was Mark's original lawyer and had not been formally disengaged. The tension escalated as both lawyers argued their claims.
Justice Abdulmalik then asked Mark to identify his legal representative. Mark pointed at Balogun, effectively disowning Abubakar. Following this, Abubakar applied to withdraw all processes he had filed, including the bail application that Balogun had intended to rely on. The judge granted the withdrawal and struck out the documents. The court adjourned the case until May 18 for the hearing of a fresh bail application from Balogun.
Implications
This development highlights the complexities of legal representation in high-profile cases. The delay in the bail hearing means Mark will remain in custody until the next court date. The case continues to draw attention due to its connection to national security and freedom of expression issues.
