The planned arraignment of actress Doris Ogala before a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, was on Thursday stalled due to her absence in court.
Ogala was to be arraigned on a four-count charge filed by the Federal Government bordering on alleged cyberstalking of Pastor Chris Okafor, including claims of publishing personal materials without consent, dissemination of false information, cyberbullying, and attempted extortion.
At the proceedings before Justice Akintayo Aluko, prosecuting counsel, Tolulope Mokuola, drew the court’s attention to the absence of the defendant and applied for the issuance of a bench warrant.
“My Lord, the defendant is absent despite being duly served with hearing notice,” Mokuola submitted. “We respectfully apply for a bench warrant to compel her attendance.”
In opposition, defence counsel, Temiloluwa Akindayini, informed the court that his client was unable to attend due to health reasons, stating that she had undergone surgery two days earlier.
“My Lord, the defendant is indisposed, having undergone a surgical procedure on April 21, 2026,” he said.
“She is currently in Abia State recuperating. An affidavit to that effect has been filed before this Honourable Court,” Akindayini said.
Responding, the prosecutor faulted the defence for failing to serve the said affidavit and for not notifying the prosecution ahead of the hearing.
“My Lord, we were not served with the affidavit, and no prior notice was given regarding any medical condition,” Mokuola argued.
“The hearing notice provided sufficient time to inform both the court and the prosecution,” he said.
He further questioned the authenticity of the medical report relied upon by the defence.
“The medical report is not from a government hospital, which is the standard requirement,” he added. “There is no clear means of verifying its authenticity.”
In his remarks, Justice Aluko noted the procedural lapse on the part of the defence.
“The defence ought to have properly notified the prosecution and ensured service of the relevant processes,” the court observed.
However, the court declined to grant the application for a bench warrant, holding that the interest of justice required that the defendant be given the benefit of doubt, particularly as the affidavit was already before the court.
Following this, the prosecution urged the court to mandate that any subsequent medical report be issued by a government hospital and that the defence be held accountable should the defendant fail to appear at the next adjourned date.
“My Lord, we urge the court to insist on a verifiable medical report from a government hospital and to hold the defence responsible if the defendant is absent at the next sitting,” Mokuola submitted.
Ruling on the issue, Justice Aluko directed the defendant to produce a comprehensive and verifiable medical report from a government hospital and ensure same is served on the prosecution before the next date.
“The defendant shall present a verifiable medical report from a government hospital and serve same on the prosecution,” the court held.
“She is also to be present in court at the next adjourned date for her arraignment,” the judge said.
The matter was consequently adjourned to June 9, 2026, for arraignment.
According to the charge, the Federal Government alleged that between September 2024 and March 2026, Ogala published indecent images and materials of the complainant on social media without consent, with intent to cause embarrassment and reputational harm.
She is also accused of circulating messages and videos alleging that the cleric committed rape against his wife, engaged in ritual practices, and was responsible for another person’s death allegations the prosecution described as false and calculated to intimidate, damage reputation, and extort money.
The prosecution further alleged that the defendant transmitted false electronic messages and recordings aimed at harassing and bullying the complainant, with the materials said to have gained traction across blogs and social media platforms.
The fourth count borders on alleged attempted extortion, with claims that the defendant threatened to continue publishing damaging content unless she received financial compensation or was provided with a house.
The alleged offences are said to contravene Sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(2)(a), and 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024.
Leave a comment