The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday 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 issued the warning while adjourning the case until October 28, following requests for more time by lawyers representing the defendants.
The defendants — Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability — were arraigned on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and kidnapping.
The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism, abducted Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State, and subsequently killed him.
They were also accused of belonging to IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), as well as unlawfully possessing firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
When the matter came up for trial on Wednesday, prosecution counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, informed the court that the case was scheduled for hearing following the defendants’ plea.
She also sought permission to conceal the identities of prosecution witnesses under Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
However, Kelvin Ekwe, counsel to the first and second defendants, opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution had not demonstrated why the witnesses’ identities should be concealed.
Ekwe further submitted that the request should be made through a formal application to enable the defence to respond appropriately.
When Justice Abdulmalik asked him to identify the 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 brief ruling, the judge granted the prosecution’s request, holding that concealing the witnesses’ identities was necessary in the interest of justice, given the terrorism-related nature of the case.
She directed that the witness be identified by the code name “AB” and warned that anyone who contravened Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to one year in prison.
The trial, however, could not proceed after the defence lawyers sought an adjournment.
Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, who appeared for the third and fourth defendants, told the court that he was newly taking over the case and needed time to study the case file.
Ekwe also said he had only recently been served with video evidence by the prosecution and was not prepared to proceed with the trial.
Responding, Oladunjoye maintained that the video evidence would not be used during Wednesday’s proceedings and urged the court to allow the trial to continue.
She also argued that Ekwe’s absence from court on October 6 had contributed to the delay.
As both defence lawyers rose to address the court simultaneously, 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,” the judge said.
She added that proceedings in her court were expected to comply almost entirely with international best practices.
Justice Abdulmalik explained that she would ordinarily have been reluctant to list the case for hearing because of the numerous pre-election matters before her, including at least nine judgments she was required to deliver before November 9.
However, she said she considered the terrorism case important and deserving of expeditious determination.
After listening to the parties, the judge granted a short adjournment but warned the defence against any further action capable of delaying the proceedings.
The case was adjourned until October 28 for continuation of trial.
