Court rules on IPOB objection to witness protection April 25

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja will on April 25 decide whether or not to vacate her earlier order directing prosecution witnesses testifying in the trial of the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and three others should be shielded from public view.

Justice Nyako had on December 13, 2016 ordered that the witnesses be shielded following Federal Government concern that their witnesses were in danger and that they were not willing to testify in an open court on trial for conspiracy to broadcast materials tended to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria and create a Biafra state.

The leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi were initially facing an 11-count charge but six of the charges which relate to terrorism acts were on March 1, 2017 struck out for being incompetent.

Urging the court on Thursday to vacate the witnesses’ protection order, counsel to Kanu, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, argued that since terrorism charge has been struck out, among others, against the defendants, there was need to review the ruling which gave the prosecution the right to shield witnesses.

He stated that with the amended charges, the defendants are no longer on trial under the Terrorism Act but for alleged crimes that the law allowed the defendants to be tried in an open court. He argued that it was necessary for court to set aside the order of December 13, 2016.

“An accused who is not standing trial on offences not mentioned in that section can be tried in the open court,” Ejiofor argued.

Counsel to the third defendant, Emmanuel Esene, cited section 36 (4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, saying that defendants standing trial on criminal cases should be tried in open court.

“When the order (to shield witnesses) was made, terrorism charge was included after my Lordship struck out the charge against the defendants, that protective order should be vacated”, he said.

Also arguing along the same line, Chukwuma Ozougwu, counsel to the fourth defendant, urged the court to note that everybody before the court was equal and should be treated equally.

The question is: “On what basis is the prosecution opposing the application for open trial. The prosecution counsel has not given enough reasons why my application should be refused.

No basis, no foundation for opposing the application. Justice should not only seen to be done but should not also be clouded in darkness. For interest of justice, I urge the court to grant my application”, Ozougwu held.

However, prosecution counsel, S. M Labaran urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ application, for being frivolous and lacking in merit. He said the application was an attempt to slow down the progress of the case.

He drew the attention of the court to Section 232 (4) of the Administration of the Criminal Act which gives the judge discretionary power under which the December 13 order was made.

He said if the court vacates the order, the defendants would have succeeded in making incursion into the judge’s discretionary power.
The Judge adjourned till April 25 for ruling.