Olu Of Warri’s Missing Crown Case Adjourned Till April 20

A Magistrate Court sitting in Warri, Delta State has adjourned the Olu of Warri alleged missing crown case to April 20, 2022.

The case with suit number: No.MW/178/C/2021, Commissioner of Police Vs. Chief Ayiri Emami, the Ologbotsere of Warri was brought following alleged theft of a gold crown at the Olu’s palace last year.

At the resumed hearing of the case, Jolone Ikomi (esq) and F.J Atie (esq) appeared for the prosecution having been granted FIAT to prosecute on behalf of the state Commissioner of Police.

Chief Victor E. Otomiewo appeared as lead defence counsel with Chief Emmanuel Uti, P. Okogie, E. F, Akporuvweku, O. Edowe, E. S. O., Ogholaja and M. K. Ighomrore appearing as co-defence counsels.

The suit was brought sequel to a petition from the palace of the Olu of Warri against Chief Ayiri Emami, the Ologbotsere of Warri Kingdom.

Counsel to the applicant/claimant, had on Monday urged the court to adjourn the case to enable the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) that was absent in court to appear the next hearing date.

He said that the IPO was detailed from the AIG’s office Benin and could not make it to court on time thus prompting the application for stand down till 12 noon and subsequent adjournment to Wednesday 16/3/2022 for continuation of the prosecution’s case.

The IPO had in January opened the prosecution’s case which had suffered several adjournment.

At the resumed hearing on the prosecution case on Wednesday, the Applicant/Claimant counsel, Prof Abiodu Amuda-Kannike (SAN), told the court that the palace of Olu of Warri, petitioned the Chief Judge of the state for the transfer of the case from the court on ground of insecurity and alleged closeness of the magistrate to the defendant.

The petition from the palace alleged that the magistrate should recuse herself from the case alleging link with Ayiri.

In a counter motion, the lead defence counsel, Otomiewo opposed to the claims saying the vicinity of the court was best suitable for the case as it is surrounded by several security formations.

The court therefore refused the application for transfer of the case to another court.