The former Senate president, a doctor and former governor of the state, is charged with making defamatory statements against Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq.

The charge was filed by the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Ibrahim Sulyman, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ayoola Akande, and Assistant Chief State Counsel, B.L. Abdulsalam.

According to the charge sheet, Saraki was accused of publishing and sharing a statement on social media platforms including Facebook, X and in newspapers on or about April 17, 2026, alleging that AbdulRazaq did not possess secondary school education qualifications.

The government alleged that the statement was false and was intentionally published using insulting, derogatory and abusive language aimed at provoking the governor and the state government.

The prosecution further stated that the publication was capable of causing a breakdown of public peace, contrary to Section 399 of the Penal Code, Cap. P4, Laws of Kwara 2006.

At the court sitting on Wednesday, prosecution counsel, R.O. Balogun, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for arraignment and urged the court to issue a bench warrant against Saraki for failing to appear in court.

Balogun said that the defendant had been duly served and that his counsel’s presence in court indicated his awareness of the proceedings.

“The defendant’s counsel is in court appearing for him and he should be here. We are the prosecution and should be allowed to proceed. There is no valid reason given for his absence.

“We therefore pray the court to issue a bench warrant against him in line with Section 138,” he submitted.

However, counsel to the defendant, Jimoh Mumini, a senior advocate, challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court rather than the State High Court.

He also questioned the service of the charge on his client, insisting that Saraki had not been properly served.

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

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