BEVERLY HILLS, February 09, (THEWILL) – Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has lost his bid to recover some of the documents seized from him by the Federal Government, when he was arrested on arrival into the country.
At the resumption of his ongoing trial before Justice John Tsoho, the prosecution counsel Mohammed Diri, moved his application filed before the court seeking for the protection of the prosecuting witnesses on the grounds that there had been alleged threat to life of some of them.
In his opposition to the application, Chuks Muoma, counsel to the defendants, argued that since the security agents had been restricting public access into the trial court, the issue of secret trial was not necessary since there were security apparatus on ground to forestall any form of breakdown of law and order, having emphatically laid complaints before the court over the inability of some sympathisers’ of the Biafra movement’s restriction into court.
Furthermore, Muoma prayed the court for the release of some seized properties of the first accused, Nnamdi Kanu, which he said were not needed anymore by the prosecution as they were not listed in proof of evidence; the items includes $2,200, N87,000 and his Nigerian and British passports.
Diri, however objected to the release of the items on the fact that the proper procedure was for the defence to do an application to the Attorney General of the Federation, stating that the listed items should be released to them, if that had been done, it was for the office to look at the relevance of the documents, citing Section 10(7) of the Administration of Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
Having perused submissions made by the parties in the matter, Justice Tsoho upheld arguments of the defence counsel that Section 10 (7) of the ACJA was not applicable in such matter as the defendants had been charged and arraigned before the court.
He dismissed the defendants’ application for the release of items on the grounds that the prosecution was not confined to the number of witnesses or evidences it could provide, to prosecute the matter, but ruled that security agencies should allow close relatives and members of the public entrance into the court for the proceedings after proper screening.
The matter was thereafter adjourned to February 19, for the motion to protect witnesses to be heard.
Story by David Oputah
