The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has on Wednesday, struck out the amended six treasonable felony charges preferred against the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal Government.
Justice Binta Nyako struck out the charges, following the withdrawal of the charges by the Prosecution counsel, Mr. K. E. Kaswe of the Federal Ministry of Justice. Kanu’s lead lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, accused FG of deliberately frustrating the speedy determination of the case stating that the amended charges were served on him barely 48 hours ago.
“My lord, in one of the attachments, pictures of lawyers waiting to have a meeting with the defendant at the DSS facility, were snapped with a secret camera and displayed. “Names of his lawyers- Ifeanyi Ejiofor and Maxwell Opara- were also mentioned.
They have brought new issues and even changed the wordings of the charges. The fact that the court sustained only seven counts in the previous charges and they have now reduced them to six counts, means that the charges have already been altered,” Ozekhome argued.
Ozekhome stressed that it was wrong for the Prosecution to insist on going on with the trial, without firstly re-arraigning the defendant. Consequently, Kaswe had to apply for withdrawal of the amended charges following Ozekhome argument and Justice Nyako struck out the charges.
The court however turned down the request for bail made by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu. Kanu, who is being tried for an alleged treasonable felony offence, had applied for bail pending the conclusion of his trial.
In a ruling on Wednesday, Justice Binta Nyako held that the defendant did not deserve to be granted bail the second time having abused the one earlier granted. Justice Nyako said: “Until the issue of absence of the defendant for his trial, with all the bail conditions breached, is determined, the instant application of the defendant for bail will at best be premature and it is refused.
“However, the defendant is at liberty to refile the application.” The judge observed that he noted that substantial progress had not been made in the trial because of the many interlocutory applications filed since the commencement of the case in 2015.
She noted that over 19 of such applications had been filed by parties. The judge asked parties to allow the case to proceed to trial to enable the charges to be determined, one way or the other.