A Federal High Court in Abuja will on April 25 rule on whether to review an order earlier made by the same court presided over by Justice Binta Nyako to shield witnesses in the case involving the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu.
Nyako had on December 13, 2016 ordered that witnesses that will testify for the prosecution against Kanu and three others on trial for conspiracy to broadcast materials tending to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria and create a Biafra State will be shielded from the public.
Kanu is the first defendant, while Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi are the second third and fourth defendants.
They are currently facing an amended 11-count charge slammed against them by the Federal Government.
At Thursday’s proceeding, counsel to Kanu, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, argued that since terrorism charge has been struck out, among others, against the defendants, there was the need to review the ruling, which gave the prosecution the right to shield witnesses.
Ejiofor averred that terrorism act seeks leave to protect witnesses, but now that the charge had been struck out from among charges the defendants are been tried for, it was necessary for court to set aside the order of December 13, 2016.
He said: “An accused who is not standing trial on offences not mentioned in that section can be tried in the open court.”
Counsel to the third defendant, Emmanuel Esene, cited section 36 (4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended as saying that defendants standing trial on criminal cases should be tried in open court.
Esene said: “When the order was made (to shield witnesses), terrorism charge was included.
“Now that you my lordship struck out the charge against the defendants, that order should be vacated.”
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.
Ozougwu queried: “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 the interest of justice, I urge the court to grant my application.”
However, the prosecution counsel, S. M. Labaran, urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ application, adding that it was frivolous, lacking in merit and an attempt to slow down the progress of the case.
Labaran drew the attention of the court to Section 232 (4) of the Administration of the Criminal Actm which gives a judge discretionary power under which the December 13 order was made.
He held if the court should the order, the defendants would have succeeded in making incursion into the power.
The Judge adjourned till April 25 for ruling.
Follow The Eagle Online Channel on WhatsApp
