Alleged murder: Court Reserves Ruling In Suit Against 20-Ex NUPENG Leaders—-The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court on Wednesday reserved ruling in a motion filed by the police against 20 former leaders of the Petroleum Tanker Drivers (PTD) branch of the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) charged with attempted murder.

In the suit, marked: CR/042/2023, the former union leaders, including a one-time National Chairman, Lucky Osesua, were arraigned before Justice Yusuf Halilu.

They are charged with  five counts of charge of attempted murder, breach of peace and assault.

Also charged are Dayyabu  Garga, Humble Obinna, Akinolu Olabisi, Godwin Nwaka, Tiamiu Sikiru, Abdulmimin Shaibu and John Amajuoyi.

Others are  Zaira Aregbo, Patrick Erhivwor, Stephen Ogheneruemu, Gift Ukponku and Sunday Ezeocha and seven others.

The union members were alleged to have attacked NUPENG President, Wiliams Akporeha; General Secretary, Wale Afolabi and the newly elected National Chairman of the PTD branch of NUPENG, Augustine Egbon.

The NUPENG members were particularly alleged to have acted “in a manner likely to cause the death of one Comrade Wiliams Akporeha and Comrade Augustine Egbon”, when they laid siege at PTD’s office at No. 50 Moses Majekodenmi Crescent , Utako District in Abuja on Nov. 1.

In the suit, the defendants were further accused of voluntarily causing grievous bodily harm to Comrade Williams Akporeha, Comrade Olawale Afolabi, Comrade Solomon Kilanko and Comrade Augustine Egbon.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Justice Halilu reserved ruling in application filed by the prosecution counsel, Mr Frank Longe seeking for the revocation of the defendants ‘ bail.

Longe at the resumed sitting on the case today told the court that the prosecution filed a motion on March 1.

The motion according is marked M/4807/24 praying the court for the bail of the defendants to be revoked and restraining order issued.

He added that the defendants are threatening the lives of the prosecution witnesses and their family members.

Longe claimed, that until it is stopped, the case can not go on and therefore pleaded with the court to do the needful.

Responding, the defence counsel, Christopher Oshomegie, SAN, told the court that his clients have never departed f from what the court ordered them when bail was granted.

He added that the names, places of alleged people being threatened were not given.

Oshomegie argued that the prosecution have not shown any documents on the threat .

” He is asking the court to take away the liberty of these men without giving the materials to do so.

” The is done with malifidi for you to do what should not be do. This issue is a ‘leadership tussle ‘ they are doing this because the election is coming up on Friday ” he told the court.

However, Longe told the court that their witnesses were not in court because they went for a burial.

He therefore, prayed for a date.

Justice Halilu however, adjourned until April 29 for trial but reserved ruling in the application for revocation of bail and restraining order.

He ordered the defendants to remain on the bail earlier granted them by the court.

Justice Halilu on Feb. 12 adjourned the case after Longe, informed the court that the prosecution had filed an additional proof of evidence.

The judge noted that there was a contractual agreement between the court and the defendants, adding that bail was a constitutional right since the defendants were presumed innocent by the constitution.

He then warned the defendants to avoid doing anything that might cause revocation of their bail.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor , said he was ready to go on with the case having brought some of its witnesses to court.

The counsel then informed the court that the defendants were still going about to cause trouble in spite of the fact that they were on bail.

The defence counsel, Mr Christopher Oshomegie, SAN, denied the allegation and argued that his clients were gentlemen who would never engage in such criminal acts.

He, however, urged the court to protect the defendants from those he described as ‘power mongers.’