SAN FRANCISCO, May 25, (THEWILL) – The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal has thrown out the appeal brought before it by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu and two other pro-Biafra agitators, namely David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu, who are challenging what they termed, “strange procedure” adopted in their trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In a consolidated appeal, the three defendants, who are answering to a six-count treason charge preferred against them by the federal government, alleged bias against the trial judge, John Tsoho, who not only declined to grant them bail, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of eight witnesses billed to testify in the matter.
Justice Tsoho had equally rejected application praying him to discharge and acquit the three defendants in line with section 351(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA 2015.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, a three-man panel of Justices of the appellate court led by Justice Abdul Aboki, dismissed the defendants’ appeal as “grossly lacking in merit” and refused ordering the release of the defendants on bail on the ground that allegations against them are “grievous and serious”.
Reading the lead judgment, Justice Aboki held that it was not in doubt that the first defendant, Kanu, has dual citizenship, stressing that Kanu’s possession of both Nigerian and British passports increased the likelihood that he could jump bail if released from detention.
As regards the procedure adopted by the trial court in the case, the appellate court panel maintained that Justice Tsoho had the discretion to decide how the proceeding should be conducted.
“The lower court has the power to exercise its discretion on the matter and the exercise of such discretion by the trial judge did not amount to denial of fair hearing to the defendants.
“The issues are resolved against the appellants. Ruling of the trial court is hereby upheld,” the appellate court averred.
The lawyer to the defendants, Chief Chuks Muoma SAN had specifically told the Court of Appeal that Justice Tsoho erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19, 2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March 7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”.
They maintained that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mohammed Diri, who had informed the trial court that witnesses scheduled to testify against the defendants said they would not appear unless they were allowed to wear masks or have their identities shielded from both lawyers and people observing the proceeding.
“My lord this is because they are already receiving threats from associates of the defendants that they will be dealt with. The witnesses said they love their lives and requested that their identities be shielded from people who are coming to witness the proceeding,” Diri told the court.
He continued that the DSS operatives also billed to testify in the matter, made similar request on the basis that they are investigating terrorism cases and would not want their identities exposed.
Following his application, Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the witnesses to testify behind a screen, stressing that the decision did not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the witnesses from appearing in mask.
The three defendants had earlier opposed the application of the federal government for secret trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing ”masquerades” to testify against them.
Though the presiding judge maintained that the subsequent order he made in respect of the trial aligned with his ruling on February 9 that rejected secret trial of the defendants, the defence lawyer, Muoma yesterday urged the appellate court to set aside “the revised order for the identities of the witnesses to be protected”.
The Senior Advocate argued that the trial court had become functus-officio on the matter, having earlier ruled on the previous application by the prosecution; arguing that the federal government ought to have appealed against the initial ruling instead of re-approaching the same court with a similar application.
He then prayed the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer their case-file to another Judge for trial.
