The man who named his dog ‘Buhari’ pleaded not guilty and was granted bail. However, the hearing of the case has been fixed for Monday, November 21 by Joachim Iroko, in a Chief Magistrate Court in Ogun State.
Recall that the 40-year old man, Iroko, was arrested on August 22 for writing a name ‘Buhari’ on his dog and parading the Hausa section of Ketere Market, Sango area of Ogun state where he resides.
When the case was called before Chief Magistrate Bolaji Ojikutu, on Monday, Counsel to the accused, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, informed the court that he had filed two applications to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.
He informed the court that the prosecution had declined service of the said applications in court, and had insisted that service should be effected at his office.
Adegboruwa, then urged the court to suspend the trial since the accused was challenging the jurisdiction of the court. He also solicited that the court directs the prosecution to furnish the defence with the proof of evidence for the case.
After listening to arguments, the court fixed hearing of the application for November 21, and also directed the prosecution to furnish defence counsel with the proof of evidence. In the motion on notice dated September 16, Iroko is seeking an order, quashing Charge No: 671C/2016 preferred against him, for want of jurisdiction.
Read Also: Pet Named Buhari: Presidency Reacts
He is also asking the court set down his application for preliminary hearing and stay further proceedings before the court, in Charge No. 671C/2016, pending the hearing and final determination of his application. The applicant contended that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on the charge.
He argues that the subject matter of the charge preferred against him, did not disclose a criminal offence in law for which the applicant could be put on trial. He said that the court had the jurisdiction to quash a charge where there was no disclosure of an offence as the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. According to NAN, the applicant noted that he possessed the legal right to give his dog any name, adding that he habours no ulterior motives what so ever.