Prima Facie Case Established:Open Your Defence- Court Tells Nnamdi Kanu
Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday refused to halt the ongoing trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The court further ordered Kanu to open his defence against the allegations leveled against him.
In a ruling delivered by Justice James Omotosho, the court held that a prima facie case had been established against the defendant, warranting his explanation.
The judge dismissed Kanu’s no-case submission, describing it as lacking in merit.
Kanu had filed the no-case submission to quash the seven-count terrorism and treasonable felony charges preferred against him by the Federal Government. However, the court rejected this plea and mandated that Kanu proceed to open his defence. Accordingly, the court fixed October 8 for Kanu to present his defence.
It will be recalled that the IPOB leader, through his team of lawyers led by former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, had applied for his discharge and acquittal, insisting that he had no case to answer. Kanu maintained that the Federal Government failed to produce credible evidence to substantiate the charges against him.
He argued that neither the documentary evidence nor the oral testimony of five witnesses presented by the prosecution established a prima facie case sufficient to compel him to enter his defence. He urged the court to uphold his no-case submission and terminate further proceedings.
In arguing the application, Chief Agabi, SAN, stressed that although the Federal Government accused his client of inciting violence, it failed to call any witness who could testify how they were incited by Kanu to commit a crime. The witnesses were operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS), who admitted that their roles were limited to obtaining statements from the defendant.
Agabi further argued that no investigation report on the terrorism allegations was made available to the court. He highlighted that despite the charge being amended eight times, no witness had testified on how they were personally affected by the violence allegedly instigated by Kanu.
He contended that Kanu’s broadcasts were misconstrued; according to Agabi, Kanu merely urged people to defend themselves against marauding killers. The defence lawyer described as “mere boasting” the defendant’s threats to “bring down the world.”
Agabi also argued that encouraging Nigerians to defend themselves is a constitutional right, a view supported by notable figures including the Director-General of the DSS, Mr. Adeola Ajayi, and former Minister of Defence, General Theophilus Danjuma (rtd).
Agabi also criticized the prolonged solitary confinement of his client for over six years, stating that such detention breaches international laws, which stipulate that no one should be held in solitary confinement for more than 15 days.
He also challenged the proscription of IPOB, asserting that such a ban cannot be valid without the President’s approval. “Without the President’s approval, there cannot be any proscription. If they have it, they should present it,” he insisted.
Agabi questioned the court’s jurisdiction to try Kanu on charges relating to the alleged unlawful importation of a radio transmitter into the country.
On the other hand, the Federal Government urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission and compel Kanu to open his defence. The prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, argued that the defendant should be directed to explain why he engaged in terrorism-related activities that promoted violence and destruction, including the killing of at least 170 security operatives.
Awomolo insisted that Kanu, through both video and audio evidence tendered before the court, admitted that he is the leader of a proscribed organisation and that he made all the broadcasts allegedly calling for violence and destruction. He contended that the content of the broadcasts could not be dismissed as “mere boasting.”
FG’s lawyer added that the issue of IPOB’s proscription is currently pending before the Supreme Court and should not be entertained by the trial court.
Though Justice Omotosho initially adjourned the case to October 10, following an affidavit of urgency filed on behalf of the defendant—who reportedly experienced a deterioration in health while in detention—the court brought the case forward for ruling.
