Judul : Terrorism: Order Nnamdi Kanu to defend his acts, Prosecution tells Court
link : Terrorism: Order Nnamdi Kanu to defend his acts, Prosecution tells Court
Terrorism: Order Nnamdi Kanu to defend his acts, Prosecution tells Court
…Urges court to reject IPOB leader’s no-case submissionA Federal High Court sitting in Abuja was on Friday urged to order the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to enter his defence in the terrorism charge for which he is being prosecuted by the Federal Government.
Prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, who made this request during Friday’s proceedings, also urged the court to reject the no-case submission made by Nnamdi Kanu.
He prayed the court to instead order him to explain why he engaged in terrorist activities that promoted violence and destruction, including the killing of not least 170 security officials.
Awomolo, while adopting the prosecution’s address in opposition to the no-case submission filed by Nnamdi Kanu, told the court that the prosecution has supplied sufficient evidence in proof of all elements of the offences for which Kanu was charged to warrant the court to call on him to enter his defence.
He noted that the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered many exhibits, including video and audio evidence, adding that, as against the claim by defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi, SAN, the reply address of the prosecution addressed all issues raised, to the effect that the no case submission is of no moment.
Awomolo, who prayed the court to dismiss the no-case submission, argued that all the court was required to do at this stage of the case was to take a panoramic view of the evidence led so far and determine whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the defendant to warrant his being called to enter a defence.
He noted that the defence, in its no-case submission, attacked the credibility of the witnesses, the record and evidence led so far, which is not what is required at this stage.
Emphasising why the court should reject the no-case submission, the senior lawyer noted that, in both the video and audio evidence tendered by the prosecution, Nnamdi Kanu admitted being the leader of IPOB, which he knew was a proscribed group.
He added that Kanu also, in some other videos, admitted making broadcasts in which he allegedly called for violence and destruction.
Reading a portion of the defendant’s address in support of his no-case submission, Awomolo faulted the argument by counsel to Kanu that the several broadcasts by the IPOB leader amounted to a clear case of boasting that did not require criminal prosecution.
Awomolo argued that the law prohibits statements that have the possibility of causing fear in the mind of the people, adding that, “Why will somebody say a terrorist, who boasted that security men and other people should be killed, should be allowed to go free?”
Awomolo argued that the aim of the defendant was to create a separate state of Biafra, and in the process, not less than 170 security men were killed because of his boasting.
“Why was he boasting? Boasting is not the answer. If the defendant believes that he was merely joking and was a content creator, he should be made to answer why he was boasting and creating fear in the minds of the people.
“When a person is boasting and threatening death and violence, that cannot be said to be mere boasting,” Awomolo said and urged the court to call on the defendant to come and explain what his boasting was about.
Awomolo faulted the claim by Agabi that the defendant has been in solitary confinement for ten years now and explained that Kanu, who was first arrested in 2015, was granted bail in 2017, which he enjoyed until 2022 when it was revoked on the grounds that he jumped bail.
He said, the current detention of the defendant was upon an order of the court, which found that he jumped the earlier bail granted to him and accused the defence legal team of being behind the delays experienced in the case before now.
“For three years, his counsel were responsible for the delay of the trial. The delay had been the shenanigans of the defence team, not that of the prosecution. That their case has lasted for ten years is not true. They are the cause of the delay,” Awomolo added.
On Kanu’s argument that IPOB was not lawfully proscribed, Awomolo contended that since the issue was currently before the Supreme Court, it would be inappropriate for the trial court to pronounce on whether or not the proscription was properly done.
Earlier, Agabi argued that all the prosecution has succeeded in doing was to paint the picture that the defendant is a bad man, contending that no single element of the offences charged was proved by the prosecution, adding that the prosecution did not bring anyone before the court who said he was incited by Kanu’s broadcasts.
Agabi said, “This man (Kanu) can boast. He was just boasting. He said I can bring the world to a standstill. I don’t see anything wrong with that. You don’t prosecute a man for mere boasting.”
He drew the court’s attention to the wave of killings in most parts of the country, and argued that the defendant was equally concerned with the state of insecurity in the country.
While insisting the defendant did nothing wrong, Agabi said the defence team tendered evidence in the case where the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Adeola Ajayi and a former Defence Minister, Theophilus Danjuma, were heard advocating that people should defend themselves against attacks.
He argued that “what the defendant said was that the people should defend themselves” and faulted the END SARS report tendered by the prosecution on the grounds that it was not authenticated.
Agabi said his client has been under solitary confinement for more than six years, noting that under International Law, solitary confinement must not exceed 15 days.
The defence lawyer said, “He (the defendant) is no longer normal on account of his solitary confinement. The case has been pending for ten years.
“Memories have been lost, which is why most of the prosecution witnesses were saying they can’t remember, they don’t know, when they were asked questions,” he said.
He also faulted the death reports tendered by the prosecution, arguing that the reports were tendered without the doctors being invited to be cross-examined.
Agabi noted that from the record of proceedings, the witnesses called by the prosecution said “I don’t remember, I am not aware, I do not know” 80 times, when they were being questioned and added that such responses from witnesses do not satisfy the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Agabi, who said the defence team raised 40 points in its address, stated that the prosecution failed to respond to 10 issues which the defence raised.
“If they (prosecution) failed to respond to one or two issues, it is enough for the court to acquit the defendant. But, in this case, the prosecution failed to respond to 10 issues raised by the defence.
“The participation of the witnesses was limited to obtaining statements. The statements obtained from the defendant were not investigated.
“All the witnesses came from the DSS. That is why they kept saying I can’t remember, I am not aware, because they did nothing,” he said and urged the court not to attach probative value to the additional evidence filed after trial had commenced in the case.
He noted that the charge had been amended about seven times, but no persons’ names were reflected as those who were incited by the defendant.
Agabi faulted the proscription of IPOB, arguing that proscription does not lie without the President’s approval. “Without the President’s approval, there can not be any proscription.
“We are saying there is no proscription, because there is no presidential approval, if they have it, they should bring it”, he said and argued that the court lacked that jurisdiction to try the charge relating to the alleged unlawful imported transmitter, noting that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on that.
After listening to the arguments of lawyers on both sides, the trial Judge, Justice James Omotosho, adjourned till October 10 for ruling on whether or not to allow the no-case submission and free the defendant or reject it and order him to enter his defence.
ALSO READ TOP STORIES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).Demikianlah Artikel Terrorism: Order Nnamdi Kanu to defend his acts, Prosecution tells Court
Anda sekarang membaca artikel Terrorism: Order Nnamdi Kanu to defend his acts, Prosecution tells Court dengan alamat link https://www.punyakamu.com/2025/07/terrorism-order-nnamdi-kanu-to-defend.html
0 Response to "Terrorism: Order Nnamdi Kanu to defend his acts, Prosecution tells Court"
Post a Comment