A
Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday granted an order seeking the
protection of witnesses during the trial of the leader of the Indigenous
People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu.
Nnamdi Kanu during an appearance in court
Earlier today, a Federal High Court in Abuja, reportedly granted an
order seeking the protection of witnesses during the trial of the
leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
It can be recalled that last month, the court refused the federal
government’s application to mask its witnesses in Kanu’s trial, but
Justice John Tsoho, gave the new ruling after hearing the arguments of
both counsel for and against government’s application to produce
witnesses protected 'by a screen.'
The lead defense counsel, Chuks Muoma, who recounted the various
stages of the case since it started in October 2015, accused the
prosecution of unwittingly prolonging the matter, adding that the
prosecution had on three occasions disobeyed the order of court and
re-arrested Kanu after he was granted bail by various courts.
Muoma also said the prosecution had a right to appeal if it was
dissatisfied with any ruling or proceedings of the court. He said
further that his clients had for too long remained in detention, without
substantive trial, arguing that the prayer of the prosecution to
adjourn the matter till witnesses are protected was a ploy to further
detain the clients.
He said the law provides for the prosecution to invite the
defendant to court for arraignment, adding that the section states that
when the case is called, the defendant appears voluntarily after court
sermons or is brought to court by a court warrant.
But in the event where the complainant fails to appear and make its
matters known in court, the case could be struck out. Kanu’s lead
counsel, therefore asked the court to give an order for the prosecution
to proceed with the matter or strike out the case.
He also prayed the court to discharge his clients after striking
out the case and issue a restriction order, preventing any further
arrest of the three defendants by the SSS or any other agency for
related offences.
Mohammed Diri, prosecution counsel who is also the Deputy Director
of Prosecution in the Office of the Attorney General, in his response,
said the law cited by the defense counsel talks basically about the
absence of the complainant, stressing that the complainants in this case
were fully present in court.
He stated that his request bordered on a variation of the court
order made on February 19 for the presentation of witnesses in such
manner, as to accommodate a section for the protection of the said
witnesses.
But Muoma objected, stressing that an application for such a
variation should have been made in a written document within 14 days
after the order was made requesting the appearance of witnesses in
court, not as a verbal request before the court.
Diri however prayed the court to grant a short adjournment to allow
him prepare a written request for a variation of the court order.
In his ruling, Tsoho noted that Section 351 (1) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act mentioned must be considered in
relation to the complainant in this matter. "For the provision to apply, it must first be ascertained who the complainant is," said the judge.
Tsoho said the matter before him is between the three defendants
and the federal government – represented by Diri. He therefore ruled
that the said provision does not apply in the quest to dismiss the
matter as tabled before him.
Tsoho further ruled that the request made by Diri does not vary much with the Order Three of the court’s ruling on February 19.
The judge, who noted that the court had previously ruled against
the masking of witnesses, however gave an order (Order 3), which allowed
for the presentation of witnesses protected from identification by the
general public.
He said the screened witnesses would be visible to the defendants and the counsel. "In the light of this, the court is disposed to granting the application sought by the learned DPP," the judge ruled.
The case was adjourned till March 9 for presentation of the masked
witnesses as the defense counsel said they would contest the decision of
the court.
