A magistrate court sitting in Wuse Zone 2, Abuja, has granted bail in the sum of N1 million to a businesswoman, Tracyniter Nicholas Ohiri, who w
A magistrate court sitting in Wuse Zone 2, Abuja, has granted bail in the sum of N1 million to a businesswoman, Tracyniter Nicholas Ohiri, who was allegedly detained on the order of the Minister of Works, David Umahi, over claims of defamation.
Ohiri was arraigned by the police for allegedly defaming the Minister following a business transaction.
She pleaded not guilty when the charge, as contained in the First Information Report (FIR), was read to her by the court registrar.
Delivering his ruling, His Worship Ibraheem Ope admitted the defendant to bail in the sum of N1 million with two sureties in like sum.
The court ordered that the sureties must have verifiable residential addresses and provide evidence of payment of water or electricity bills.
Arguing the bail application, defence counsel, Abubakar Marshal, submitted that pre-investigation detention is prohibited under Nigerian law.
He contended that his client’s continued detention violated Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights, stressing that no Nigerian should be remanded without the establishment of a prima facie case.
Marshal further argued that the alleged offence is bailable under Sections 32(3) and 158 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
He informed the court that the defendant had been held in custody beyond the constitutionally permitted 48 hours and assured the court that she would not interfere with investigations and would be available for trial.
However, the prosecution counsel, Patrick Wisdom, opposed the bail application, arguing that there are exceptions to the constitutional provisions cited by the defence.
He maintained that investigations were still ongoing and alleged that the defendant exhibited hostility during the investigation.
In his ruling, Magistrate Ope held that there was no cogent evidence before the court to warrant the denial of bail, noting that the court would not infringe on the defendant’s constitutional rights.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to April 28, 2026, for further hearing.
