Arrests of Ejimakor, Emmanuel, plot to frustrate Kanu’s defence — says SAN

Chukwuma-Machukwu Eme, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said on Monday that the arrests and detention of Aloy Ejimakor and Prince Emmanuel Kanu, a counsel and witness in the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu, are a plot by the police and Department of State Services (DSS) to frustrate Kanu’s defence on alleged terrorism charges.

Ume, SAN, who is counsel to Aloy Ejimakor and Prince Emmanuel Kanu, made the complaint in a letter to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Inspector-General of Police (IGP), demanding their immediate unconditional release following their arrests and detention on Monday.

He said that their “arbitrary arrest and detention constitute not merely a violation of personal liberty, but a direct interference with the constitutional right to fair hearing and representation by counsel of choice, as guaranteed under Section 36(4)(a) and (6)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).”

He recalled that the trial court judge, Justice James Omotosho, had last week adjourned Kanu’s trial to October 22 for the defence legal team to meet between 9 a.m. and 12 noon with the defendant in the courtroom and October 23 for him to open his defence.

His letter read in part as follows: *”Your office is fully aware that these persons are counsel and witness in the ongoing proceedings of FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu & Ors.

“Certainly, this arrest and detention are targeted and discriminatory and could end up denying the defendant in FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu & Ors. the opportunity to have a good defence as required under Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“This right provides an absolute liberty to the defendant to pick and choose any legal practitioner to represent him and any witness to testify on his behalf. The provision further commands that the defence witnesses be treated under the same conditions as the prosecution’s witnesses.

“Why then would the Police and DSS work to undermine this right by treating witnesses to the defendant’s case in a far worse manner, through arrest and detention, than the treatment accorded to witnesses for the prosecution?

“The arrest of a legal practitioner acting for an accused, or of a witness whose attendance is necessary to the accused’s defence, is a direct affront to these constitutional guarantees and to the rule of law. It threatens the accused’s right to a fair trial, undermines confidence in the criminal justice process, and places counsel in an impossible position, unable to discharge professional duties without fear of arrest.”

Citing Supreme Court legal authorities, Ume said: “The accused person is at liberty to call any witness not called by the prosecution that he believes would assist his case.”

He added that for these reasons, arresting lawyers and/or witnesses to block or hinder defence representation is contrary to both domestic constitutional protections and well-established international standards on the role of lawyers.

He also said that the United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) make clear that “all persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice” and that lawyers must be able to perform all professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or improper interference.

The senior counsel made copious references to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9, LFN 2004), which under Articles 5, 6, and 7 guarantees the right to dignity, liberty, and fair hearing.

Likewise, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) upholds the right to counsel and to adequate facilities for defence preparation. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) expressly forbid the harassment or persecution of lawyers for representing their clients.

He therefore demanded that “Barr. Aloy Ejimakor, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, and all others arrested in connection with the ongoing lawful defence of the matter in FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 be released immediately and unconditionally.
“That the Nigeria Police Force refrain from any further acts that may obstruct or intimidate members of the defence team or witnesses.

“That the Inspector-General of Police orders an immediate investigation into this unconstitutional interference and takes corrective measures to prevent further occurrences.”

Adding that the continued detention of counsel and associates in a matter sub judice constitutes a clear sabotage of the judicial process and an institutional contempt of court, he stated: “We trust that your good offices will act swiftly to restore confidence in the rule of law and ensure the unfettered continuation of the ongoing trial.”