KANU’S TRIAL: Court Refuses Prayers, Grants Witnesses Partial Secrecy

Nnamdi Kanu at the Federal High Court

FEDERAL High Court in Abuja, yesterday, rejected a request by pro-Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, and two others, for an order dismissing the charges proffered against them on account of the seemingly reluctance of the prosecution to continue with the trial.

Kanu, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu are facing trial on a six-count of treasonable felony, unlawful possession of firearms and other offences following their agitation and declaration for a sovereign state of Biafra.

Rejecting the prayers on Monday, Justice James Tsoho however opted to grant partial secrecy to the prosecution witnesses following convincing evident before him that the lives of the witnesses are under threat.

Commenting on the development, the counsel to the defendants, Mr. Chuks Muoka (SAN) criticized the prosecution over its seeming politics and technicalities in keeping the accused in the custody but obviously unready to either prosecute or discharge them adding that the matter can proceed without subjecting the witnesses to secrecy. 

Emphatically, the defence counsel urged the court to dismiss the complaints stating that it is inconsistent with the criminal justice system. He urged the court to be guided by Section 351(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 in handling the matter.

“It is not that the court is not prepared to hear this case, not that the defendants are not ready for trial, but that the prosecution is not ready. I apply that the charge against the defendants be dismissed and they be discharged and acquitted. And the prosecution not giving an opportunity to disregard the court; the court should make an order restraining the prosecution from further arraigning or arresting the defendants based on this or similar charges”, Muoka said.

In rejoinder, Mr. Muhammad Diri, the Prosecution counsel who is also the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), disagreed with Muoka’s reference to Section 351 of the ACJA, saying it has no nexus with the facts in issues, and therefore urged the court to discountenance it.

It will be recalled that the Prosecution counsel earlier told the court that some of the witnesses complained of receiving calls threatening their lives and consequently prayed to the court to grant his witness protection by shielding them from the public view while they testify in the court.

  

“The section talks about the non-appearance of the prosecution. We have not said we are unprepared to prosecute this case or that our witnesses are not available. They are available and willing to attend court. Our application is for the court to slightly vary its order to some level of protection for our witnesses, who are being threatened,” Diri said.

 

Justice Tsoho submitted that the application to allow prosecution witnesses be shielded to testify behind a screen was to protect them from the public adding that right to life is a fundamental human right applicable to all persons, hence would be considered as long as it would not jeopardize the case of the defense, adding that the arrangement would be first demonstrated for parties to see before it is adopted for proceedings the next date.

“The court is disposed to granting the application by the prosecution to allow the prosecution witnesses testify behind a screen to shield them from public glare,” Tsoho said.

Justice Tsoho adjourned the case to March 9 for trial.