Justice Olayinka Faaji of the Federal High Court has been asked to disqualify himself from the trial on the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) fraud scheduled for Friday, 26 June 2015 based on bias which was contained in some of his pronouncements.

The pronouncements were in his ruling on the bail application for the second and third defendants,  Mr. Olaniyan Muniru Adeola and Mr Toogun kayode Philip,  respectively, by the defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo, a barrister.

Ojo claimed in his motion that “the constitutional rights of the 2^nd and 3^rd   defendants to fair trial will be or is likely to be prejudiced and or impaired by reason of likelihood or real likelihood of bias on the part of the presiding judge.”

The accused persons were charged with obtaining property by false pretence, unjust enrichment, falsifying accounts, forging, among others.

Ojo made his motion on the grounds that the court while delivering its ruling on bail application pending trial  made pronouncements that showed or were capable of showing that his lordship had adjudged the 2^nd  and 3^rd  defendant as having been deeply involved in the offences the 2^nd  and 3^rd accused were alleged to have committed before the honourable court  in his 111-page ruling on pages 93 to 97 and that fair trials “are impaired and prejudiced when the trial judge approaches his adjudicatory function with a closed mind.”

He said that justice should both be done and be manifestly seen to be done.

Prosecuting counsel  Rotimi Jacob had earlier said, "Ojo didn’t file the motion until the day of the trial" just to stall the progress of the case, as the witnesses were already on ground and "though there is a new law that on the day of the hearing the other party cannot be taken by surprise, but the old law is still more popular and it allows allegation to be made to inpune the integrity of judge."

Howbeit, Justice Faaji refused to go on with the trial Friday based on the oral allegations and ruled that all counsel should file their motion on his jurisdiction and impartiality to hear the case and the motion to quash the case before July 1, 2015.

He, therefore, ruled that the case is adjourned to the July 1, 2015.