The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, presided over by Justice Godwin Iheabunike, has dismissed an application filed by the former President of All Farmers Association of Nigeria ((AFAN), Arch Kabiru Ibrahim to restrain the Inspector General of Police (IGP) from proceeding with criminal impersonation and other criminal charges against him.
Joined in the motion marked FCT/HC/CV/443/2026 and filed on 3rd February, 2026, were: the Registered Trustees of All Farmers Association of Nigeria (AFAN), Presiding Magistrates, Wuse, Abuja, Court 6 and Court 4, and three others as respondents.
The applicant (Kabir Ibrahim) sought an order of injunction to restrain the respondents, their agents, privies, officers, servents, from commencing proceedings against him over the AFAN leadership dispute.
The applicant in the motion claimed that a faction of AFAN had got some injunctive orders at the Federal High Court, and the Court of Appeal to frame criminal charges against him.
The applicant argued that the matter is purely civil in nature, therefore it constitutes an abuse of court process which violates his constitutional right of appeal, and amounts to an improper attempt to criminize a civil dispute pending before the Supreme Court.
But the respondents (IGP, AFAN, the Magistrates, Wuse, Abuja, Court 6 and 4, and others) in their arguments countered that the “applicant’s prosecution is lawful and founded on allegations of criminal impersonation, criminal intimidation, joint acts and incitement of public disturbance arising from the applicant’s continued parading of himself as President of AFAN after expiration of his tenure and after adverse judgements of the Federal High Court , and the Court of Appeal.
The respondents maintained that “the pendency of a civil Appeal before the Supreme Court does not operate as a stay of criminal proceedings, particularly in the absence of any subsisting order of stay.”
They further contended that “the Magistrate Court posseses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the criminal charges and that the present application for certiorari is frivolous, constitutes forum shopping, and amounts to an abuse of court process intended to frustrate the criminal trial.”
The presiding Judge in his judgement on 3rd July, 2026, ruled in favour of the respondents that the law is settled that “affidavits are meant for facts and not legal arguments” therefore, “The parties are enjoined to allow the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate Court and the appeal before the Supreme Court to proceed in accordance with law and without resort to needless multiplicity of actions.
“This Court must also state that the constitutional right of appeal, though secrad, does not by itself confer immunity from criminal investigation or prosecution. The proper remedy for preserving the responding appeal ordinarily lies in an application for stay before the apellete Court seized of the appeal.
“In the final analysis, this Court is unable to hold that the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate Court constitute, without more, an excess of jurisdiction amenable to certiorari. The applicant has equally failed to establish that the Magustrate Court acted without jurisdiction or in breach of fair hearing principles.
The Court did not award cost to any party.
