Jigawa abduction case adjourned for judgment as Federal High Court reviews allegations involving a DSS operative and legal arguments from both sides
A Federal High Court sitting in Jigawa has concluded proceedings in a Jigawa abduction case involving the alleged abduction and sexual abuse of a teenager, Walida Abdulhadi, and adjourned the matter to April 28, 2026, for judgment following a virtual hearing conducted via Zoom.
The case centres on allegations that a Department of State Services operative, Ifeanyi Onyewuenyi, abducted and sexually abused the victim, a resident of Hadejia Local Government Area, in 2023.
The matter has since moved through multiple legal stages as authorities seek enforcement of earlier court directives.
During Thursday’s virtual sitting, defence counsel Abdulmalik Sani requested additional time to file a counter affidavit, stating the need to gather further information before responding fully to the claims before the court.
The request introduced a brief procedural delay in the final stages of the hearing.
Prosecuting counsel Kabir Adamu opposed the application, insisting that the prosecution was prepared to proceed and urging the court to move forward without further delay.
Adamu maintained that the interests of justice required timely resolution of the matter.
The prosecution is seeking enforcement of an earlier order issued by a Hadejia Magistrate Court, which directed the DSS to release the victim unconditionally to her parents and present the suspect to law enforcement authorities for investigation.
However, the Department of State Services has challenged that order at the Federal High Court, resulting in the current proceedings.
Adamu argued that the DSS’s involvement as an interested party could potentially obstruct the investigation and affect the fairness of the process.
He further emphasised that the safety of the victim and her reunification with her family remain the central concerns of the case.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Hassan Dikko fixed April 28, 2026, for judgment.
The decision is expected to provide clarity on the legal questions surrounding the enforcement of the magistrate court’s order and the role of the security agency in the matter.
The case has drawn attention due to its sensitive nature and the involvement of a security operative, with stakeholders closely watching the court’s final ruling.
