According to the suspended Dean, this contravened Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act which states that a practising lawyer’s name must be contained on the roll of legal practitioners in the country.
The professor is currently standing trial on amended four counts of alleged sexual harassment and gratification.
Also joined in the matter is his lawyer, Sunny Anyanwu, who was alleged to have harassed ICPC’s star witness, urging her to shun the ICPC’s invitation.
Dr. Osuobeni Akponimisingha has been appearing in court for the ICPC alongside Joshua Alobo.
In a motion on notice filed on behalf of the suspended Dean by their lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN), a copy which was obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday, they urged the court to acquit them of the sexual harassment and cybercrime charges filed against them by the ICPC.
The motion on notice partly read, “The amended charge in this case is incompetent and preferred by a person whose name is not on the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria under Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act and thus robbing this court of its jurisdiction.
“The amended charge was preferred by one Dr Osuobeni Ekoi Akponimisingha, a person whose name is not on the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria under Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act.”
The defendants also urged the court to refer the two prosecution counsel to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.
“We hereby seek an order of court striking out the amended charge, in this case, same being incompetent and preferred by a person whose name is not on the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria under Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act and thus robbing this court of its jurisdiction.
“An order of court striking out all the appearance of Joshua E. Alobo from the prosecution counsel for appearing as a private legal practitioner in a criminal case without the fiat of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation.
“An order of court referring both Osuobeni Ekoi Akponimisingha and Joshua E. Alobo to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for answering and caused to printed on their processes the title ‘Dr.’ ‘Professor’ when they do not have the academic qualifications to show for the titles thereby misrepresenting themselves to the public and bringing legal profession to ridicule and shame.”
