‘Your Honour, my client has been defamed. The defendant raises only one defence – that of justification. They can only establish that if they can adduce cogent evidence of Mrs Elias’s alleged wrongdoing. The allegations are serious and, if proven, potentially ruinous for Mrs Elias. She, her husband and a very reputable and important charity have already been irreparably damaged by these misconceived allegations based on the flimsiest of evidence which we are now told cannot be substantiated. It really is an outrage that Mr Okoro now seeks to reorganise his witnesses to cope with the gaping hole in his case. The claimant should not—’

‘Yes, yes, Mr Hagworth, I get the point,’ Peters mumbled. ‘What have you to say, Mr Okoro?’

Okoro stood up and tucked his fingers firmly into his lapels. As it happened, Hagworth’s intervention had given him the opportunity to think things through. Two years’ work would stand or fall on what he said next. He heard the bench creak behind him, the journalists poised in the public gallery breathe in, and felt the weight of responsibility crushing his shoulders. Why was it so damned hot in this courtroom?

Peters waited expectantly. Three of the slowest seconds of Okoro’s life ticked by before he took a deep breath and said: ‘Your Honour, it was understood with Mr Ali that he would attend court this morning. My instructing solicitor is making urgent enquiries as to his whereabouts. While it is an inconvenience, I suggest that justice would be better served by a short adjournment than a rearrangement of the defendant’s witnesses to enable Mr Ali’s intentions to be established. We can then avoid wasting any further of the court’s time.’

‘That’s extremely unsatisfactory.’ Peters folded her arms and glared at Okoro. ‘What do you say, Mr Hagworth?’

‘I concur wholeheartedly with Your Honour’s sentiments. Extremely unsatisfactory. My application is for the trial to continue, for Mr Okoro to present his evidence and for the defence being barred from relying on Mr Ali’s witness statement.’

‘What if Mr Ali turns up on Monday?’ asked Peters, but in a way that suggested she was offering Hagworth the opportunity to stick the knife in, rather than testing the parameters of his submission.

‘Well, that would be unfortunate but our laws are based on the here and now and not what may or may not occur. In the same vein, if the claimant, my client, had failed to issue these proceedings within the one year limitation period then we would be relying on the mercy of the court to allow this action to be prosecuted. In the absence of a very good reason, we would not expect the court to allow us salvation. The claim would die. Similarly, what explanation has the court been offered for Mr Ali’s absence? None. Why therefore should Mr Okoro be allowed a second bite of the cherry?’