The
leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, was
cheered and supported in a big way by prominent traditional rulers,
clerics and others at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Nnamdi Kanu at the Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday (Photo: Abayomi Fayese)
Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed
April 25 for ruling on whether or not to review her earlier order
allowing the shielding of the prosecution’s witnesses in the trial of
four Biafra agitators, including Nnamdi Kanu.
Security was heavy at the court, which was filled up with the
defendants’ sympathisers, among them traditional rulers, priests and
elders.
Justice Nyako chose the date after listening to arguments from
lawyers to the parties in the case in relation to an application by the
defence for the court to review its ruling on the protection of
witnesses.
Nnamdi Kanu, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi are being tried on an amended 11-count charge.
On December 13, last year, Justice Nyako granted the prosecution’s
request that its witnesses’ identity be shielded from the public as a
form of protection for them, because most of the witnesses are members
of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the group headed by Kanu.
Yesterday, Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor urged the court to review
its December 13 ruling since the nature of the case has changed with
the striking out of charges relating to terrorism in the court’s last
ruling.
Ejiofor argued that since terrorism charge has been struck out in
the charge, there was need to review the ruling which gave the
prosecution the right to shield witnesses.
He said the Terrorism Act allows the prosecution to seek leave to
protect witnesses, but that since his client was no longer charged with
terrorism, it was appropriate for the court to set aside the order of
December 13, 2016.
Ejiofor said: “An accused who is not standing trial on offences not mentioned in that section can be tried in the open court.”
Another defence lawyer, Emmanuel Esene, cited Section 36 (4) of the
1999 Constitution as amended as saying that defendants standing trial
on criminal cases should be tried in open court.
Esene said: “When the order (to shield witnesses) was made,
terrorism charge was included; now you my lordship struck out the charge
against the defendants, that order should be vacated.”
Another member of the defence team, Chukwuma Ozougwu, counsel to
the fourth defendant, urged the court to note that everybody before the
court was equal and should be treated equally.
Ozougwu said: “On what basis is the prosecution opposing the
application for open trial. The prosecution counsel has not given enough
reasons why my application should be refused.
“No basis, no foundation for opposing the application. Justice
should not only be seen to be done but should not also be clouded in
darkness. For interest of justice, I urge the court to grant my
application”, Ozougwu held.
Prosecuting lawyer, Shuaibu Labaran urged the court to dismiss the
defendants’ application, describing it frivolous, lacking in merit and
an attempt to slow down the progress of the case.
Labaran drew the attention of the court to Section 232 (4) of the
Administration of the Criminal Act (ACJA), which gives a judge
discretion to determine whether or not a witness in a case deserves
protection.
Supporters not allowed to access the court premises stood outside the court’s main entrance while proceedings lasted.
With banners bearing IPOB logo and insignia, they chanted
solidarity songs in Igbo language under the watchful eyes of security
men.
No comments:
Post a Comment