Nigerian political activist and content creator, Peter Akah, also known as Randy Peter, has given a detailed and damning eyewitness account of the events that led to the dramatic withdrawal of detained activist Justice Crack’s bail application at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, revealing previously undisclosed details including the identity of the activist’s actual lawyer, how Marshall Abubakar allegedly inserted himself into the defence team, and how Abubakar allegedly pushed the activist’s wife aside after withdrawing the application and told supporters that the bail document belonged to him, not to them.
Akah, who said he had been with Justice Crack throughout the ordeal, described the day’s events as “quite unfortunate” and offered a scathing assessment of some individuals who present themselves as activists and advocates.
“Not every person who criticizes a bad government is interested in a better country. Some people only traffic as long as the system is bad because it puts them in business,” Akah said.
In a revelation that provides crucial context to the courtroom dispute, Akah disclosed that Justice Crack’s actual lawyer is Professor Sam Amadi a prominent legal academic, former Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), and well-known public interest lawyer not Barrister Marshall Abubakar, as had been widely assumed based on Abubakar’s public statements.
According to Akah, the confusion began at the first court appearance. When Justice Crack was to be arraigned on Monday, Prof. Amadi was present in court but had another engagement and was not robed, as the defence team had received information that the arraignment would happen that morning. Since Prof. Amadi was not robed, he called another lawyer, Barrister Clements, to stand in for Justice Crack, alongside Barrister Femi Balogun. Both lawyers, Akah noted, were senior to Barrister Marshall Abubakar at the Bar.
However, when Marshall Abubakar arrived at court that day, he inserted himself into the proceedings and insisted on leading the defence. Barrister Clements objected, telling the court that he was the lead counsel and had taken instructions from Prof. Sam Amadi to stand in. But Abubakar insisted.
To avoid creating a scene before the judge, who was already asking what was going on, Barrister Clements and Femi Balogun stood down and allowed Abubakar to lead, while they appeared as co-counsel for Justice Crack.
“They stood down and said he should lead, but they appeared as co-counsels for Justice. Nobody thought there was any mischievous intent because, of course, they were working together,” Akah recounted.
Akah revealed that after the first court appearance, the lawyers came out together and began working on the bail application collaboratively. Barrister Femi Balogun called Justice Crack’s wife, and the team brought her to make a deposition in support of the bail application. The bail application was prepared jointly by Marshall Abubakar and Femi Balogun, but Abubakar put his name on the application and filed it with the court.
“They did the bail application together, Marshall and Femi. Marshall put his name on the application and filed and submitted. And nobody thought there was any mischievous intent because, of course, they were working together,” Akah said.
According to Akah, the bail hearing kept stalling throughout the following week. It was Femi Balogun — not Abubakar — who wrote a reminder to the judge pleading that a hearing date should be fixed. The team kept coming to court throughout the week in efforts to expedite the process, until a date was finally fixed for Thursday.
Akah also revealed that since the bail application was filed, everyone on the defence team had been trying to get a copy of the document from Abubakar to ensure they could fast-track the process, but Abubakar had not made it available to the rest of the team.
When the matter came up on Thursday before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, the judge asked who the lead counsel was so that the lead could announce appearance and introduce the other lawyers appearing. Barrister Femi Balogun stood up and introduced himself.
Marshall Abubakar immediately objected, insisting that he must introduce himself as the lead counsel. The judge then turned to the detained activist and asked him directly who should lead. Justice Crack said Femi Balogun could lead, and that the lawyers were working together.
But Abubakar refused to accept this. He took exception to the arrangement and told the judge that if he was not going to lead the defence, he wanted to withdraw the bail application — because, as Akah put it, “he took his own name” on the application.
“The judge looked at him and said, ‘You want to withdraw everything you have filed on behalf…?’ The judge was shocked at the action today in court. Marshall said everything should be taken out,” Akah recounted.
According to Akah, Justice Abdulmalik was visibly shocked by Abubakar’s conduct. Despite the withdrawal, the judge attempted to mitigate the damage, indicating that she wanted to give the matter a near date out of mercy.
“She actually cautioned Justice Crack on the kind of counsels that represented him. She made certain statements I don’t want to say because I don’t want to join issues,” Akah said, suggesting the judge had strong words about the conduct of the lawyers but that he did not wish to repeat them publicly.
The judge initially proposed that Justice Crack be brought back to court the following day (Friday), but because the defence team could not effect service on the DSS and other parties within that timeframe, the judge settled on a 48-hour window. Since the next sitting day after 48 hours would be Monday, the matter was adjourned to Monday, May 18, 2026, for the hearing of a fresh bail application and commencement of trial.