Titus Eleweke, South East Editor
AWKA, Nigeria – The Anambra State High Court sitting in Awka, the state capital, has adjourned a motion seeking the withdrawal of suretyship in a pending murder case until March 6, 2026.
The applicants, Edwin Obiora Samuel and Anuta Israel Chineze, through their counsel, Mrs. Victoria Okani, informed the court that they no longer wish to remain sureties for the defendant in the murder matter.
The application, brought by way of a motion on notice with Suit No. MN/18M/2026, came before the court presided over by Hon. Justice G. C. Anulude. When counsel to the applicants moved the motion, defence counsel, Benjamin Maduekwe, orally objected to its being moved.
Maduekwe told the court that he was appearing for the defendant under protest, describing the manner in which the application was brought as “bizarre.” He argued that the state was not aware of the application, adding that if any application for withdrawal of suretyship were to be made, it should be initiated by the state and not by private legal counsel.
“This is what we call a busybody, though I cannot call my learned friend a busybody,” “I urge this court to reject this application because she has no business with this case.”he said.
In response, Mrs. Okani told the court that the state had been duly informed of the application and was formally notified through a letter, which the state acknowledged.
She explained that the applicants were seeking to withdraw as sureties because, after the defendant was granted bail, he allegedly began threatening them and causing disturbances within the community.
According to her, the sureties no longer feel comfortable standing surety for the defendant.
Mrs. Okani cited Section 87(1) of the Anambra State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2022, which empowers a surety to appear before the court and formally declare their intention to withdraw from a suretyship.
She added that, under the law, a surety may personally approach the court to make such a declaration but that her clients chose to act through legal representation.
“The state is fully aware of this application and even endorsed and acknowledged the notification letter,” “Whether the state is interested or not, the law allows even an individual surety to approach the court and withdraw from a suretyship in an open court” she told the Court.
The presiding judge asked the defence counsel whether he opposed the withdrawal of the sureties altogether. In response, Maduekwe maintained that there was a proper procedure for such an action and insisted that it should have been initiated by the state, not by private individuals.
The court, however, noted that no one could be compelled to continue as a surety against their will and that alternative sureties should be sought.
After listening to arguments from both counsel, Justice Anulude ruled that the court could not entertain oral objections to the motion.
He directed the defence counsel to file a written objection if he intended to oppose the application.
The matter was consequently adjourned to March 6, 2026, for the motion to be properly moved and possibly heard.
