Proceedings at a Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Thursday raised questions over the absence of actress Doris Ogala, as her arraignment on alleged cyberstalking and related offences was stalled following claims of a recent medical procedure.
Ogala is facing a four-count charge filed by the Federal Government under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024. The charges include alleged publication of nude and intimate images of a cleric, identified as Okafor, without consent; dissemination of false allegations including rape, ritual practices and involvement in a death; cyber harassment through electronic messages and videos; and attempted extortion.
At the hearing before Justice Akintayo Aluko, prosecuting counsel, Tolulope Mokuolu, urged the court to issue a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest, arguing that her absence was unjustified despite being served with a hearing notice.
“My Lord, the defendant is absent in court despite being duly served. We apply for a bench warrant to compel her appearance,” Mokuolu said.
However, defence counsel opposed the application, informing the court that Ogala had undergone surgery on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, and was currently recuperating in Abia State. He added that an affidavit detailing her medical condition had been filed on April 22 and was before the court.
“My Lord, the defendant is indisposed, having undergone a medical procedure. She is presently in Abia State recovering and is unable to attend court today. We urge the court to refuse the application,” the defence counsel submitted.
The prosecution, however, challenged the credibility of the explanation, insisting that no prior notice of the surgery was given and that the supporting affidavit was not served on the prosecution.
“My Lord, we were not served with the said affidavit, and no notice was given of any medical condition. The hearing notice provided eight clear days—sufficient time to inform the court and counsel,” Mokuolu argued.
He further questioned the authenticity of the medical report relied upon by the defence, noting that it was not issued by a government hospital.
“The medical report being relied upon is not from a government hospital, which is the standard requirement. There is no way to verify its authenticity on its face,” he added.
Justice Aluko, in his remarks, faulted the defence for failing to notify the prosecution and properly serve the affidavit.
“The defence should have informed the prosecution ahead of time and ensured that the affidavit was duly served,” the judge said.
Despite the concerns, the court declined the application for a bench warrant, holding that in the interest of justice, and given that the affidavit was already before it, the request would be refused.
Following the ruling, the prosecution urged the court to mandate stricter conditions to ensure the defendant’s appearance at the next sitting.
“My Lord, we urge the court to direct that any medical report must come from a government hospital and that the defence should be held responsible if the defendant fails to appear at the next adjourned date,” Mokuolu submitted.
In his ruling, Justice Aluko directed that the defendant must present a comprehensive and verifiable medical report from a government hospital and ensure that same is served on the prosecution ahead of the next hearing.
“The defendant must present a verifiable report from a government hospital, same to be served on the prosecution before the next date. She must also be present in court for her arraignment,” the court held.
The matter was adjourned to June 9, 2026, for arraignment.
