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) facing terrorism charges over the alleged kidnap and killing of a Department of State Services (DSS) operative.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning after lawyers representing the defendants sought an adjournment, insisting that the case, described as a terrorism matter, must be handled expeditiously in the interest of justice.
The four defendants — Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability — are standing trial on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism, kidnapping, murder and unlawful possession of firearms.
According to the prosecution, the defendants allegedly conspired to commit acts of terrorism, abducted DSS operative Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State, held him hostage and later killed him.
The prosecution also alleged that the suspects are members of the outlawed IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and were found in unlawful possession of firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.
The defendants pleaded not guilty when they were arraigned before the court on September 28, prompting the court to fix the matter for trial.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, informed the court that the prosecution was ready to begin trial and applied for an order allowing its witnesses to testify under protected identities in line with Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
She urged the court to conceal the identities of the witnesses, arguing that the nature of the case required their protection.
However, counsel to the first and second defendants, Kelvin Ekwe, opposed the oral application, arguing that the prosecution had failed to show how revealing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice its case.
He further maintained that such an application ought to be formally filed to enable the defence respond adequately, relying on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
In a brief ruling, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed the objection and held that, given the terrorism-related nature of the case, exposing the identities of prosecution witnesses would not serve the interest of justice.
The court consequently ordered that the prosecution witness be identified only by the code name “AB” throughout the proceedings and warned that anyone who violates the witness protection provisions under Section 232(5) of the ACJA risks a one-year jail term.
The trial, however, suffered another setback after Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, counsel to the third and fourth defendants, informed the court that he had only recently taken over the case and required more time to study the case file.
Ekwe also told the court that he had just been served with video evidence by the prosecution and was therefore not prepared to proceed with the trial.
Although the prosecution clarified that the video evidence would not be relied upon during Wednesday’s proceedings and urged the court to continue with the trial, the defence maintained its request for an adjournment.
Oladunjoye also reminded the court that an earlier adjournment was caused by the absence of one of the defence lawyers.
Tension briefly arose in the courtroom when both defence lawyers attempted to address the court simultaneously, prompting Justice Abdulmalik to caution them against unruly conduct.
“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 compliance according to international best practice,” the judge said.
Justice Abdulmalik disclosed that despite handling numerous pre-election cases and having at least nine judgments to deliver before November 9, she deliberately gave priority to the terrorism trial because of its importance.
She stressed that the matter should be concluded without unnecessary delays and warned all parties against any action capable of frustrating the proceedings.
The court subsequently granted a short adjournment at the request of the defence and fixed October 28 for the continuation of trial.