The Federal High Court in Abuja has warned defence lawyers against delaying the trial of four suspected members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) accused of kidnapping and killing a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh....
The Federal High Court in Abuja has warned defence lawyers against delaying the trial of four suspected members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) accused of kidnapping and killing a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the warning on Wednesday after two defence lawyers sought an adjournment, citing the need for more time to prepare for the trial.
The defendants are Michael Okafor, alias Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, alias Ability.
They were arraigned on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and kidnapping. They pleaded not guilty to the allegations.
The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and abducted Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.
They were also accused of taking the DSS operative hostage and killing him, belonging to IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and unlawfully possessing firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel Munirat Oladunjoye applied for permission to conceal the identities of prosecution witnesses under Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
However, counsel to the first and second defendants, Kelvin Ekwe, opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution had not shown how revealing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice its case.
He also contended that the application should be formally filed to allow the defence to respond and avoid being taken by surprise.
When Justice Abdulmalik asked him to cite a legal provision requiring a formal application, Ekwe relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
In a short ruling, the judge upheld the prosecution’s request, holding that exposing witnesses’ identities in a terrorism case would not serve the interest of justice.
She directed that the trial proceed with the witness identified by the code name “AB” and warned that anyone who violated Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to one year’s imprisonment.
The proceedings were subsequently interrupted by requests for adjournment from the defence.
Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, who appeared for the third and fourth defendants, told the court that he was newly taking over the case and needed more time to study the case file.
Ekwe also said he had only just been served with video evidence by the prosecution and was not ready to proceed with the trial.
Oladunjoye acknowledged that the video evidence had just been served but argued that it would not be used during that day’s proceedings. She urged the court to allow the trial to continue and noted that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had previously caused an adjournment.
As both defence lawyers rose simultaneously to address the court, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly conduct.
“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict,” she said.
“So, when I run my court, there should be 99.9 per cent compliant according to international best practice.”
The judge said she had initially been reluctant to list the case for hearing because of the numerous pre-election matters before the court and at least nine judgments she was required to deliver before November 9.
She, however, described the terrorism case as crucial and said it should be determined expeditiously.
Justice Abdulmalik eventually granted a short adjournment but warned the defence against any further actions capable of delaying the proceedings.
The case was adjourned until October 28 for continuation of trial.