Court Warns Lawyers Against Delay in Trial of Four IPOB Suspects

The Federal High Court in Abuja warned lawyers on Wednesday not to delay the trial of four suspected members of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). They are facing charges related to the kidnapping and murder of an officer from the State Security Service (SSS).

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the warning after two lawyers, Kelvin Ekwe and Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, asked for an adjournment.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the suspects are Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, also known as Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability.

They were brought before Justice Abdulmalik on 28 September on six counts of terrorism and kidnapping.

The prosecution claims that the suspects conspired to commit terrorism and were involved in the abduction of Ekpenyong Owoh while he was traveling from Port Harcourt in Rivers to Awka.

They also face accusations of holding the officer hostage and killing him.

The suspects are said to belong to the banned IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network. They are also accused of involvement in activities related to terrorism.

The prosecution claims the suspects had illegal firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun, in connection with their alleged crimes.

These charges come after investigations into the abduction and murder of the officer and the suspects' alleged activities.

The suspects pleaded not guilty to the charges.

When the case was called on Wednesday, Munirat Oladunjoye, representing the prosecution, told the court that the trial was set to go ahead since the suspects denied the allegations.

She asked the court to protect the identity of their witnesses, referring to Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

Oladunjoye requested permission to mask the witnesses' identities.

But Mr Ekwe, who represents the first and second defendants, disagreed. He said the application was unnecessary.

Ekwe argued there was no evidence that unmasking the witnesses would harm the prosecution's case.

He added that the application should be formally filed so they could respond properly and avoid surprises.

Justice Abdulmalik then asked Ekwe to cite a law to support his argument that the prosecution needed a formal application.

In response, Ekwe mentioned Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

Oladunjoye countered Ekwe's arguments.

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik sided with the SSS lawyer's request.

She stated that since this case involves terrorism, it would not be just to reveal the witnesses' identities.

The judge said the trial should start and that witnesses would be referred to as “AB”. She warned that anyone violating Section 232(5) of ACJA could face a one-year jail term.

However, Mr Uwadiegwu, the lawyer for the third and fourth suspects, said he was just joining the case and needed more time to review the file.

Ekwe also told the court that he had just received video evidence from the prosecution and was not ready for trial.

The prosecution replied that even though Ekwe had just received the video, it would not be used in the trial that day.

Oladunjoye asked the court to allow the trial to continue.

She also pointed out that Ekwe's absence on 6 October led to an adjournment.

Unhappy, Ekwe and Uwadiegwu both stood up to explain why there should be another adjournment.

This led Justice Abdulmalik to warn them against disorderly conduct in her court.

“I run my court according to best practices, and that is why people say I am strict,” she said.

Justice Abdulmalik added that she would not have scheduled the case for hearing due to the many pre-election cases she had.

She mentioned that she had at least nine judgements to write regarding pre-election matters, which must be delivered before 9 November.

Despite this, she acknowledged the importance of the case and said it should be resolved quickly.

After hearing from both sides, Justice Abdulmalik agreed to a short adjournment but warned against any further delays in the trial. The case is now set for 28 October to begin the trial.