The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Friday, September 26, declined to stop the ongoing trial of the detained leader of the Proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra(IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
In a ruling, Justice James Omotosho, dismissed as lacking in merit, a motion Kanu filed to quash the seven-count terrorism and treasonable felony charge the Federal Government slammed on him.
It ordered the defendant to open his defence to the allegations against him.
The court held that a prima facie case has been established against the defendant to warrant explanations from him.
It, therefore, fixed October 8 for Kanu to open his defence.
Persecondnews recalls that the embattled IPOB leader had, in the application he filed through his team of lawyers led by a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi(SAN), prayed the court to discharge and acquit him of the charge, insisting he has no case to answer.
He maintained that FG failed to adduce any credible evidence to nail him to the charge.
According to the defendant, neither documentary nor oral evidence of five witnesses that the federal government produced to testify against him established a prima facie case to warrant the court to compel him to enter his defence to the charge.
He, therefore, urged the court to uphold a no-case-submission he filed to terminate further proceedings in the case.
Arguing the application, the defence lawyer, Chief Agabi(SAN), stressed that though the federal government accused his client of inciting violence in the country, it failed to call any witness to tell the court how he or she was incited by the defendant to commit crime.
He noted that the witnesses were operatives of the Department of State Services(DSS), who admitted that their roles were limited to obtaining statements from the defendant.
Agabi, further argued that no report of investigation on the terrorism allegation against Kanu was made available to the court.
He drew the attention of the court to the fact that, though the charge was amended eight times, no witness was produced to give evidence on how he or she was affected by violence that was allegedly instigated by the defendant.
He argued that Kanu’s broadcasts were misconstrued as he only urged people to defend themselves against marauding killers, adding that the defendant was merely boasting when he threatened to bring down the world.
Agabi, argued that asking Nigerians to defend themselves was a constitutional right that has been re-echoed by notable citizens that included the Director General of the DSS, Mr. Adeola Ajayi and a former Minister of Defence, retired Gen. Theophilus Danjuma.
He faulted the prolonged detention of his client in solitary confinement for over six years, saying the action was in breach of international laws that stipulated that no one should be kept in a solitary confinement for more than 15 days.
Agabi equally faulted the proscription of IPOB without the President’s approval.
“Without the President’s approval there can not be any proscription.
“We are saying there is no proscription, because there is no presidential approval; if they have it, they should bring it,” he added.
Besides, he queried the jurisdiction of the court to try the charge relating to Kanu’s alleged unlawful importation of a radio transmitter into the country.
On its part, FG urged the court to dismiss the no-case-submission and order Kanu to open his defence to the charge against him.
The prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said the court should direct the defendant to explain why he engaged in terrorism related activities that promoted violence and destruction, including the killing of not less than 170 security operatives.
Awomolo insisted that Kanu had in both video and audio evidence that were tendered before the court, admitted that he is the leader of a proscribed organisation and that he made all the broadcasts that allegedly called for violence and destruction.
He argued that the content of the broadcasts could not be waved off as “mere boasting”.
FG’s lawyer added that the issue of the proscription of IPOB should not be delved into by the trial court since it is already pending before the Supreme Court.
Though Justice Omotosho initially adjourned the case to October 10, however, following an affidavit of urgency that was filed on behalf of the defendant whose health was said to have deteriorated in detention, the court brought the case forward for the ruling.
Leave a comment