IBADAN – The ongoing legal battle involving the former leader of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) in Oyo State, Mukaila Lamidi, popularly known as ‘Auxiliary’, took a dramatic turn on Tuesday as his legal team moved to disqualify the presiding judge.
In a motion on notice filed February 17, 2026, Lamidi’s lead counsel, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, requested that Justice Bayo Taiwo of the Ibadan Division of the Oyo State High Court recuse himself from Charge No: I/74C/2024.
The defence alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias and a significant breach of the defendant’s right to a fair hearing.
At the heart of the friction is an incident allegedly occurring on April 4, 2025. The defence claimed that three members of the prosecution team, including a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, were seen exiting the judge’s private chambers just before the day’s proceedings began.
The defence noted that neither Lamidi nor his counsel were invited to or informed of this meeting.
While Justice Taiwo reportedly explained at the time that the prosecutors were merely invited to collect the court’s 2025 diary, the defence argued this ex parte communication was entirely inappropriate.
“Justice must not only be done but must be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done,” the motion reads, citing the landmark principle from R v. Sussex Justices.
The legal team further contended that Justice Taiwo had already verbally recused himself during a session on October 24, 2025.
According to the defence, the judge ordered the case file returned to the Chief Judge of Oyo State for reassignment to another court for a trial de novo (a fresh start).
However, the case was subsequently returned to Justice Taiwo’s court. The defence has now accused the judge of taking two contradictory positions on the same issue, essentially approbating and reprobating.
The key grounds for the motion include alleged violation of Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution regarding the right to a fair trial, the defence argument that once a judge withdraws, they lack the jurisdiction to revisit the matter, and that the motion invokes the 2016 Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, which mandates avoiding situations that suggest favouritism.
Following a review of the court records, Ojo (SAN) alleged that the official reasons for the judge’s initial withdrawal were not fully disclosed to the Chief Judge.
A petition was sent to the Chief Judge, accusing the court of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts regarding the circumstances of the earlier recusal.
As of press time, the Oyo State Judiciary and the prosecution team have not issued a formal response to these allegations.
The court has adjourned the matter until February 19, 2026, when the motion for recusal is expected to be heard.
All rights reserved. The content on this website, including text and other digital materials, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in part, without the express written consent of The News Accelerator Network.
For advertising inquiries, news coverage, or press releases, please get in touch with us at
📧 thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com
📞 08051017159, 08173970030
Kindly follow us on: https://www.facebook.com/thenewsaccelerator
You can also subscribe to our YouTube channels here: UCVELRC3WinKZ7tdmhmZaRmQhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/sub_confirmation=1
Post a Comment