*Ruling 9 Nov
By Gabriel Achadu, Kaduna
A Kaduna-based hotelier, Dr. Victor Balogun, has asked the Upper Customary Court 4, sitting in Kaduna, to dismiss the criminal intimidation charge filed against him by a journalist, Idibia Ude Gabriel, insisting the prosecution failed to prove any threat.
Balogun, owner of De-Jays Hotel, Angwan Boro, Sabon Tasha, is standing trial in suit No. UCC/132CR/2025 between the Commissioner of Police and Dr. Victor Balogun.
He was charged for criminal intimidation contrary to Section 377 of the Penal Code, Cap 110, Laws of Kaduna State, 1991, over an alleged threatening phone call. He pleaded not guilty.
The case stems from an online report written by the journalist on a raid carried out on De-Jays Hotel by the Special Task Force.
According to the prosecution, on 26 June, 2025, Balogun allegedly called Gabriel and threatened to deal with him if he did not withdraw the report, allegedly telling him he (Balogun) “can be so dangerous.”
To prove its case, the prosecution called two witnesses. Gabriel testified as PW1, while Inspector Bulus Alamu, the Investigative Police Officer (IPO), testified as PW2.
Only one exhibit, the defendant’s statement marked Exhibit PP1, was tendered before the prosecution closed its case.
But in a No-Case submission filed pursuant to Section 314 of the Kaduna State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2017, by legal firm, R.A.Y. Emeto & Co., the defence argued that no prima facie case has been made to warrant the defendant to enter defence.
The defence hinged its argument on the testimony of the IPO himself.
PW2 had told the court: ”Immediately, the Police investigation was raised to the MTN Communication requesting them to furnish us with the audio calls of both the parties but they refused.”
The prosecutor added: “Since the complainant did not have any voice record to back the complaint, we were left with no option than to charge the matter to court.”
Counsel to the defendant argued that under Section 286(1) of the Penal Code, criminal intimidation requires proof of act of threat, target of threat and mens rea with intent to cause harm or compel the victim to do what he is not legally bound to do.
With no audio recording, no independent corroboration and a denial by the defendant in Exhibit PP1, the prosecution failed to establish any of the ingredients, the defence submitted.
Citing Fagoriola Vs FRN (2014), FRN Vs Bankole (2012) and IGP Vs Marke (1956), where the Supreme Court held that where no case is made out at the close of prosecution’s case, the court shall discharge the defendant, which tantamounts to acquittal, the defence urged the court to invoke Sections 313 and 314 of the ACJL 2017 and discharge and acquit Balogun.
Meanwhile, the court has adjourned ruling on the No-Case submission to 9 November, 2026.
At Monday’s sitting, the defence said it had just served the submission last week. The prosecution said it had no objection to the court proceeding to ruling.
The presiding judge said he would not wait for a reply and fixed 9 November for ruling.
“So we cannot make any reply before that time. Let us wait for his ruling,” the prosecutor told journalists after the sitting.
The ruling will determine whether the case proceeds to defence or is thrown out.
