The Federal High Court in Abuja has cautioned defence lawyers against tactics capable of delaying the trial of four suspected members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). The defendants are accused of kidnapping and killing a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning on Wednesday while ruling on the prosecution’s application to conceal the identities of its witnesses and considering requests by defence counsel for an adjournment.
The defendants—Michael Okafor (aka Onyechimeleze), Chinedu Chukwudozie (alias Kante), Chibunna Olisa, and Chigozie Olisa (aka Ability)—were arraigned on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism, kidnapping, and other offences. All four pleaded not guilty.
According to the prosecution, 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 allegedly held the operative hostage before killing him.
The prosecution further stated that the defendants belong to IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and participated in terrorism-linked activities. They are also accused of unlawfully possessing firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.
When the case resumed on Wednesday, prosecution counsel Munirat Oladunjoye told the court that the matter was set for trial following the defendants’ pleas.
Oladunjoye moved an oral application for an order allowing prosecution witnesses to testify without their identities being disclosed, citing Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015. She argued that the gravity and terrorism-related nature of the case justified witness protection.
However, Kelvin Ekwe, counsel for the first and second defendants, opposed the application. He argued that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate how disclosing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice its case and maintained that the application should have been filed formally to allow the defence proper time to respond.
When Justice Abdulmalik asked Ekwe to cite the legal provision requiring a formal written application for such a request, the lawyer relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
In her ruling, the judge held that revealing witness identities in a terrorism trial could compromise the administration of justice. She granted the prosecution’s request, ordering that the trial proceed with a witness identified by the code name “AB.”
Justice Abdulmalik also warned that anyone who violates Section 232(5) of the ACJA risks a one-year prison sentence.
Despite the ruling, the proceedings hit a snag due to applications for adjournment from the defence.
Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, representing the third and fourth defendants, told the court he was appearing in the matter for the first time and needed time to study the case file. Ekwe similarly argued that he was unprepared to proceed because the prosecution had only recently served him with video evidence.
Responding, Oladunjoye acknowledged the late service of the video evidence but noted that it would not be relied upon during Wednesday’s proceedings. She urged the court to allow the trial to commence, pointing out that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had already caused a previous adjournment.
As both defence lawyers stood up simultaneously to argue for the adjournment, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly conduct in court.
