THE Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday warned defence lawyers against delaying the trial of four suspected members of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who allegedly kidnapped and killed Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh, an officer of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning after two lawyers, Kelvin Ekwe and Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, who appeared for the defendants, sought an adjournment.
Read also: DSS Arraigns Five Suspects Over Kidnap Of 20 Corps Members, Others In Imo
News Point Nigeria reports that the judge cautioned the lawyers against conduct that could frustrate the proceedings and subsequently adjourned the matter until October 28 at the instance of the two defence counsel.
The defendants are Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability.
They were arraigned before Justice Abdulmalik 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 and were involved in the abduction of Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt in Rivers State to Awka in Anambra State.
They were further accused of taking the operative hostage and killing him.
The suspects were also accused of belonging to the proscribed IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), as well as participating in activities allegedly linked to terrorism.
In addition, the prosecution alleged that the suspects were involved in the unlawful possession of firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun, in connection with the alleged offences.
The charges followed investigations into the circumstances surrounding the abduction and killing of the officer and the alleged activities of the defendants.
The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts, after which the judge adjourned the case for trial.
When the case was called on Wednesday, Munirat Oladunjoye, who represented the prosecution, informed the court that the matter was fixed for trial following the defendants’ denial of the allegations.
She told the court that the prosecution had applied to shield the identities of its witnesses pursuant to Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
Oladunjoye consequently prayed the court for an order granting permission to mask the witnesses and conceal their names.
However, Kelvin Ekwe, counsel to the first and second defendants, disagreed with Oladunjoye’s oral application.
He argued that the application was uncalled for, submitting that there was no evidence that the prosecution’s case would be prejudiced if the witnesses were not masked.
Besides, he argued that the application should be formally filed to enable the defence to respond appropriately and guard against an ambush.
Justice Abdulmalik then asked Ekwe to cite any law supporting his argument that the prosecution must file a formal application before making such a request.
Responding, the lawyer said he relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Read also: Sowore Loses Bid To Force DSS DG To Appear In Court Over Tinubu Cyberbullying Trial
Oladunjoye also countered Ekwe’s submission.
In a short ruling, the judge agreed with the DSS lawyer’s submission.
Justice Abdulmalik held that, given that the case was a terrorism matter, exposing the identities of the witnesses would not serve the interest of justice.
The judge directed that the trial commence and that the witness be identified by the code name “AB”.
She further ordered that anyone who violated Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to a one-year jail term.
Defence Lawyers Seek Adjournment
However, Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, counsel to the third and fourth defendants, informed the court that he was only coming into the matter for the first time and would need more time to study the case file.
Ekwe also told the court that the prosecution had only just served him with the video evidence, insisting that he was not ready to proceed with the trial.
The prosecution lawyer responded that although Ekwe had just been served with the video evidence, the video clip would not be used in the day’s proceedings.
She prayed the court to allow the matter to proceed.
Besides, Oladunjoye argued that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had caused an adjournment.
Dissatisfied, Ekwe and Uwadiegwu stood up simultaneously to address the court on why the matter should be adjourned.
Their action prompted the judge to caution them against unruly behaviour in her courtroom.
“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict.
“So, when I run my court, there should be 99.9 per cent compliant according to international best practice,” she said.
Justice Abdulmalik said she would not have listed the case for hearing because there were many pre-election cases on the court’s docket.
She added that she had at least nine judgments to write in respect of pre-election matters, which must be delivered before November 9.
The judge, however, said she considered the case very crucial and believed it should be determined expeditiously.
Having listened to the parties, Justice Abdulmalik agreed to grant a short adjournment.
She, however, warned against any act that could delay the trial.
Read also: El-Rufai Loses ₦120m Suit Against DSS, EFCC, ICPC As Court Orders Him To Pay ₦800,000 Damages
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until October 28 at the instance of the two defence lawyers.
