Court Warns Lawyers Against Delaying Trial Of Four Suspected IPOB Members Over DSS Officer’s Killing

The Federal High Court in Abuja has warned defence lawyers against delaying the trial of four suspected members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) accused of kidnapping and killing a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning on Wednesday after two defence lawyers sought an adjournment, citing the need for more time to prepare for the trial.

The defendants are Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability.

They were arraigned before the court on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism, kidnapping and related offences. They pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and abducted Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.

They were also accused of taking the DSS operative hostage and killing him, belonging to IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and unlawfully possessing firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for trial following the defendants’ pleas.

She sought the court’s permission to conceal the identities of prosecution witnesses under Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

However, counsel to the first and second defendants, Kelvin Ekwe, opposed the request, arguing that there was no evidence that revealing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice the prosecution’s case.

Ekwe also contended that the application should be formally filed to enable the defence to respond and avoid being taken by surprise.

When Justice Abdulmalik asked him to identify the legal provision requiring a formal application, Ekwe cited Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

Oladunjoye countered his argument, maintaining the prosecution’s position on protecting the witnesses.

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik held that concealing the witnesses’ identities was necessary in the interest of justice, given the terrorism-related nature of the case.

The judge directed that the witness be identified by the code name “AB” and warned that anyone who violated Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to one year’s imprisonment.

The trial was, however, stalled after Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, counsel to the third and fourth defendants, told the court that he had only recently taken over the case and needed time to study the case file.

Ekwe also said the prosecution had only just served him with video evidence, insisting that he was not ready to proceed with the trial.

In response, Oladunjoye explained that although the video evidence had just been served, it would not be used during that day’s proceedings. She urged the court to allow the trial to continue and noted that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had previously caused an adjournment.

As both defence lawyers rose simultaneously to explain their positions, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly conduct in her courtroom.

“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict,” the judge said.

She stressed the need for near-total compliance with courtroom procedures, adding that she would not tolerate conduct capable of disrupting proceedings.

Justice Abdulmalik further explained that the court had a demanding schedule, including several pre-election matters and at least nine judgments she was required to deliver before November 9.

Despite the pressure on the court’s docket, she said she considered the terrorism case important and deserving of an expeditious determination.

The judge eventually granted a short adjournment but warned the defence against any further actions that could unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

The case was adjourned until October 28 for continuation of trial.