Court to Rule April 25 on Application to Vacate Order on Nnamdi Kanu’s Secret Trial
Alex Enumah
A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed April 25 for ruling on an application seeking to vacate an order of court on protection of witnesses, in the trial of leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and three others.
The trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, gave the date after listening to submissions of counsel for and against the motion.
Kanu and his co-accuseds, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, are currently facing an amended five-count charge of treasonable felony slammed against them by the federal government.
The federal government had earlier arraigned the pro-Brifians on an 11-count charge including terrorism, but Justice Nyako in a ruling on a defence’s motion challenging the competence of the charge, struck out six of the charges including the one bordering on terrorism.
Also, Justice Nyako had on December 13, 2016, ordered that witnesses that would testify for the prosecution against Kanu and three others on trial for conspiracy to broadcast materials tended to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria and create a Biafra state be shielded from the public.
At the resumed trial, counsel to the defendants told the court of the need to review an earlier order of the court that upheld a motion on the protection of witnesses on grounds that there is no longer any justification for that order.
Counsel to Kanu, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, argued that since terrorism charge has been struck out, among others, against the defendants there was need to review the ruling which gave the prosecution the right to shield witnesses.
He averred that terrorism act seeks leave to protect witnesses but now that that charge had been struck out from among the charges the defendants are been tried, it was necessary for court to set aside the order of December 13, 2016.
Counsel to the third defendant, Emmanuel Eseme, 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.
Also arguing along the same line, Chukwuma Ozougwu, counsel to the fourth defendant, Urged the court to treat all equally since they are all equal before the court.
However, prosecution counsel, Shuaibu Labaran, urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ applications on grounds that it was frivolous, lacking in merit and an attempt to delay and frustrate the trial.
He drew the attention of the court to Section 232 (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which gives a judge discretionary powers under which the December 13 order was made.
Responding, Justice Nyako, adjourned till April 25 for ruling on the application, a date she had earlier fixed also for ruling on the bail application of the defendants.
Justice Nyako though refused to take applications from the defendants which bordered on release of some of their personal effects, including cash and cars however, ordered that the wedding rings of the second and fourth defendants and the reading glasses of the second defendant be released to them before the next adjourned date.