The judge
held that the provision of the ACJA was to enhance the right to speedy trial,
guaranteed an accused person in the constitution.
“Section 306
of ACJA removes hitches to speedy trial, which is component of fair hearing,”
he said.
The judge
also distinguished the trial of the Biafra agitators from that of Bukola
Saraki, the senate president.
In Saraki’s
case, the supreme court, after the advent of the ACJA, last year granted an order for
stay of proceedings in his trial before the code of conduct tribunal.
Tsoho held
that the prevailing circumstances informing the decision of the supreme court
to grant stay of proceedings in Saraki’s case was not available in the instant
case.
He said in
Saraki’s case, the issue of whether the cases entertained by the CCT were
criminal in nature or not, was still to be determined by the supreme court, and
was not available in the case before him.
He explained
that it was not in doubt that the federal high court had jurisdiction to hear
criminal cases.
“It is, more
so that the application for stay of proceedings is not founded on lack of
intrinsic jurisdiction of this court but on mode of procedure to be adopted in
the trial.’’
After
dismissing the application, he held that the trial would proceed in the mode he
had earlier directed on March 7, which was to shield them from the public, but
not to wear masks.
Court rules
Kanu’s trial must continue
A Federal
High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed the application of Nnamdi Kanu,
leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), seeking a stay of proceedings
pending determination of his appeal.
Kanu had
approached the appellate court, challenging the earlier decision of the court
to uphold the prosecution’s request to shield their witnesses from members of
the public during trial.
The judge,
Justice John Tsoho, held that the application for stay of proceedings lacked
merit and ordered that the trial would proceed in the mode earlier directed by
the court.
Kanu and his
co-defendants are standing trial on a six-count charge of treasonable felony,
unlawful possession of firearms and other offences bordering on their agitation
for secession of the
Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.
Tsoho relied
on provisions of Section 306 of the administration of criminal justice act,
2015, which prohibits courts from entertaining a motion for stay of proceedings
with respect to criminal cases.
Contrary to
the contention of Chuks Muoma (SAN), Kanu’s lawyer, Tsoho held that the
provision of section 306 of ACJA could not deny an accused person fair hearing.
The judge
held that the provision of the ACJA was to enhance the right to speedy trial,
guaranteed an accused person in the constitution.
“Section 306
of ACJA removes hitches to speedy trial, which is component of fair hearing,”
he said.
The judge
also distinguished the trial of the Biafra agitators from that of Bukola
Saraki, the senate president.
In Saraki’s
case, the supreme court, after the advent of the ACJA, last year granted an order for
stay of proceedings in his trial before the code of conduct tribunal.
Tsoho held
that the prevailing circumstances informing the decision of the supreme court
to grant stay of proceedings in Saraki’s case was not available in the instant
case.
He said in
Saraki’s case, the issue of whether the cases entertained by the CCT were
criminal in nature or not, was still to be determined by the supreme court, and
was not available in the case before him.
He explained
that it was not in doubt that the federal high court had jurisdiction to hear
criminal cases.
“It is, more
so that the application for stay of proceedings is not founded on lack of
intrinsic jurisdiction of this court but on mode of procedure to be adopted in
the trial.’’
After
dismissing the application, he held that the trial would proceed in the mode he
had earlier directed on March 7, which was to shield them from the public, but
not to wear masks.
…We’ve confidence in Court of Appeal –IPOB
— 27th April 2016
From Jeff
Amechi Agbodo, Onitsha
Leader of
Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr. Nnamdi Kanu yesterday said he has
confidence in the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to get justice.
The Abuja
division of Court of Appeal, last Tuesday shifted hearing on the appeal that
was filed by Kanu and two others till May 5 for hearing on the matter.
Counsel to
Kanu, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, while reacting to what transpired at the court
on Tuesday that led to the shift of the matter that was earlier fixed for
hearing, expressed confidence in the judiciary which he said is the last hope
of the common man.
He said when
they gathered at the Court of Appeal waiting for the case to be called up, it
was not coming on inquiry, the clerk told them that the case was not listed or
scheduled to be treated for the day.
Ejiofor
noted that three cases; Dasuki, Metu and another person came up at the court
due to the importance of the cases based on what the presiding judge, Justice
Abdul Aboki told them who stood in for the cases due to the judges conference.
He stated that judges don’t attend to court sittings during their conferences which
incidentally clashed with the fixed date for hearing of the matter of Kanu and
others, saying that was the reason why the case was shifted till May 5.
He
said: “We don’t have problem with the shift of the date for hearing. We
are aware that judges don’t go to court during their conferences, so, it is not
against our client or to undo us but the normal thing in the judiciary.”
We have
confidence in the judiciary and we are sure of getting justice at the Court of
Appeal.”
The trio of
Kanu, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawusi had gone to challenge what they
called strange procedure adopted in their trial.
Wednesday,
27 April 2016
Biafra:
WHEN IT WILL
HAPPEN YOU WILL CALL ME
AND I WILL PLAY THIS
BROADCAST FOR
YOU".......UNU LEKWA ANYA
RASIAM
By Aguocha Chinwendu.A voice was loud enough, the voice I heard from the
mountains and I saw down valleys was sorrowful yet courageous and full of power
a prophet was sounding out to his people the raw messages of EZECHUKWUOKIKE
ABIAMA he warned the stiff necked people of the east crying uncontrollably he
told them there was danger, he was mocked abused and insulted when he called
for defence the people he loved first accused him of hate preaching and calling
for war,like a sound of bell my ears are still hearing his words loud and clear
"WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN YOU WILL CALL ME AND I WILL PLAY THIS BROADCAST FOR
YOU".... UNU LEKWA ANYA RASIAM,....prophet Nnamdi KANU.it pains me he's in
detention now that a major of his prophecy just hit,who could have believed
that Hausa Fulani will travel miles into our village in Enugu to massacre and
destroy our land burnt houses and churches he told you your government cannot
save you, report has it that the presidency refused to give the Army and police
order to hinder the massacre and your representatives both senate and house
reps are not doing anything and all your governor could do was to declare
praying and fasting when his people are killed, I can't see Rev father Mbaka,he
suddenly gone dump maybe deaf too,who is the prophet to follow Rev Mbaka or my
Prophet NNAMDI KANU we have a prophet to save our generation his name
#Nnamdikanu I am a Biafran #Hardcore my Name is Aguocha Chinwendum I serve the
most High Ezechukwuokike Abiama He's my God
Court rejects
Nnamdi Kanu’s
bid to halt trial
A Federal High
Court in Abuja on Tuesday struck out an application by the leader of the
Indigenous People of Biafra, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, and his co-accused, David Nwawusi
and Benjamin Madubugwu, asking for a stay of proceedings in their ongoing
trial.
Justice James Tsoho
ruled that the application for a stay of proceedings lacked merit and ordered
that the trial should proceed in the mode earlier directed by the court.
In his ruling on Tuesday, Justice Tsoho, said he would not yield to any blackmail
in the handling of the case. He however condemned the use of what he described
as “intemperate language” by the defendants’ lawyer, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who
signed and filed the application. Referring to how the words “prudence” and
“common sense,” were used in the application, the judge said “virulent attacks
on courts do not constitute a yardstick for the success of counsel.” The judge
added, “The logical inference to be drawn from this is that if the order of
stay is not granted, then this court lacks prudence or common sense. Be that as
it may, this court will not yield to blackmail.” Kanu and his co-defendants are
being prosecuted before the court on six counts of treasonable felony, unlawful
possession of firearms and other offences bordering on their agitation for
secession of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria. They had asked for a stay of
proceedings on the basis of the appeal which they had filed against the March
7, 2016 ruling of the court varying its earlier decision of February 19, 2016
by permitting prosecution witnesses to testify in camera. Kanu and his
co-accused contended in their appeal before the Court of Appeal, Abuja, that
the order permitting the Federal Government’s witnesses to testify behind
the screen was granted without jurisdiction, because it was against the court’s
earlier ruling of February 19, which rejected the prosecution’s motion for
witness protection. But in dismissing the defendants’ application on Tuesday,
Justice Tsoho relied on the provisions of Section 306 of the Administration of
Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which prohibits courts from entertaining motions
for a stay of proceedings with respect to criminal cases.
The judge ruled that
contrary to the contention by the defendants’ lawyer, Chuks Muoma (SAN), who
argued the application, the provision of Section 306 of ACJ Act could not deny
an accused person a fair hearing. He said though he conceded that Section 306
of ACJ Act “encroached” on a judge’s discretion to grant a stay of proceedings
in criminal trial, it never denied the right of appeal guaranteed an aggrieved
party in Section 241 of the constitution. The judge held that rather, the
provision of the ACJ Act was to enhance the right to speedy trial, which an
accused person was entitled to under the constitution. “Section 306 of ACJA
removes hitches to speedy trial which is a component of fair hearing,” Justice
Tsoho ruled. The judge also distinguished the trial of the Biafra agitators
from that of the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, in which the Supreme Court
last year after the advent of the ACJ Act, granted an order for a stay of
proceedings in his (Saraki’s) trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
Justice Tsoho held that the prevailing circumstances informing the decision of
the Supreme Court to grant a stay of proceedings in Saraki’s case were not
available in the instant case. He said in Saraki’s case, the issue of whether
the cases entertained by the CCT were criminal in nature or not was to be
determined by the Supreme Court when the order of a stay of proceedings was
granted, adding that such issue was not available in the case before him. He
explained that it was not in doubt that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction
to hear criminal cases.
The judge ruled, “It is more so, given that the application
for a stay of proceedings is not founded on lack of intrinsic jurisdiction of
this court but on mode of procedure to be adopted in the trial.” He ruled that
the trial would proceed in the manner earlier directed by the court except
there was a contrary directive or order from appropriate authorities. He said,
“At this juncture, I hold with due respect and without any prejudice that, the
circumstances of this application are not deserving of an order for a stay of
proceedings. “Consequently, the applicants’ application for an order of stay of
proceedings in this case is refused and struck out. “The effect is that the
trial in this case shall be proceeded with in the manner ordered by this court,
except there is contrary directive or order from appropriate authority.” The
judge after dismissing the application adjourned till June 20 to 23 for
commencement of trial. Meanwhile, the appeal by Kanu and his co-accused, in
which they also asked for the withdrawal of their trial from Justice Tsoho and
re-assignment to another judge was on Monday fixed for May 5 for hearing.
DON'T BE DECEIVED
Do not be Deceived. The
account
by Fred Onyeali is
authentic!
Nnamdi Kanu 11/27/13 at 5:31 PM
To Fellow
Biafrans,
Allow me to take this opportunity to correct some
misleading impressions that may have been presented by Bilie Human Rights
Initiative in pursuit of their ‘legal route’ for the emancipation of we Biafrans.
Emeka Emekaesiri has continued his subtle but dubious
character assassination and name calling which he began on Facebook. Now that
he has continued to make inaccurate and false representation of the position of
Radio Biafra. I will address him via this medium before responding
comprehensively to his spurious allegations contained in his Facebook
submission.
I find Emeka Emekaesiri to be a man devoid of any honour
or principle. Radio Biafra and Bilie Human Rights Initiative signed an
agreement to bind the two groups together to pre-empt this very usurpation of
the responsibilities of one by another that BHRI is attempting or attempted on
Radio Biafra. Emeka Emekaesiri did not honour any of the clause or covenant
contained in a documented that he drafted and signed as a lawyer.
He cannot be trusted to uphold any agreement for the
following reasons:
1) He Emeka Emekaesiri took money from Biafran activists
in Europe to register Bilie Human Rights Initiative at the United Nations, when
any genuine Biafran called in truth and honesty to serve his land would have
rendered the same service for nothing. Not only did he collect money from
Biafra Liberation in Europe he equally took over the organization that he was
paid to represent.
2) I singularly registered Radio Biafra as a concern in
the UK at the same time Emeka Emekaesiri registered BHRI in his name alone. In
agreement with Emeka Emekaesiri I handed over Radio Biafra to the people of
Biafra and invited him to do the same with BHRI but he declined.
3) Emeka Emekaesiri has been claiming that there is a
legal method for achieving the independence of Biafra hence why we are in court
when in actual fact there is nothing like a legal method in the history of
freedom fighting. He has come in the same guise as Uwazuruike and Benjamin
Onwuka to deceive our people by claiming you can get freedom through the courts
or by sitting at home or declaring Biafra at Enugu Stadium. Every liberation
movement in history adopted a political process be it through civil
disobedience or armed conflict and that is exactly what we are doing via Radio
Biafra. We owe nobody an apology for adopting this approach.
4) BHRI is on record for saying that they are law abiding
citizens of Nigeria and will report anybody suspected of organizing any armed
conflict against Nigeria to the Nigerian authorities. This is the same thing
Uwazuruike did when he said his criminal group said they will arrest and hand
over anyone found intimidating Hausa/Fulani people following the Boko Haram
outrage against our people in the North.
5) Emeka Emekaesiri in the presence of Amarachi Okpara,
Egemba and Uche Mefor at a meeting in Bannister House I called to request from
him why he is not honoring a simple agreement we went into told me that
Okorocha and his people are aware of what we are doing and would like to get
involved. I warned him that I will not accept Okorocha or any Nigerian
politician in this struggle.
6) Emeka Emekaesiri has done his best to castigate and
tarnish my image before the Council of Elders and Debe Ojukwu in the hope of
alienating me from them so the field will be open for him to perpetrate his
little fraud called legal process.
7) Emeka Emekaesiri and his BHRI has been peddling
falsehood that I have been collecting money from Biafrans all over the world
without accounting for it. BHRI knows that financial accounting is done once a
year and that Radio Biafra is a duly registered business in the UK and MUST
account to Her Majesty’s government once every year. BHRI file their account in
Nigeria as a registered business in Nigeria while Radio Biafra will do so as it
is registered in the UK. I have not seen BHRI accounts so why must Radio Biafra
account to BHRI in private?
8) Emeka Emekaesiri with Egemba and the rest of BHRI on
Facebook has been peddling rumours about what may have become of the money
Biafrans are donating from all over the world. BHRI is aware that the money is
meant for our transmitter which we have now purchased yet they continue to
peddle these lies.
9) Asking every pro-Biafra group to come under BHRI is an
insult of the highest order. Where has this type of nonsensical approach been
adopted before? We are in a court that can never grant us independence, our
people are dying on a daily basis and BHRI is trying to use the fact they are
registered in Nigeria to muzzle direct action by claiming they will provide
protection. When did groups start providing protection? Is it not the law that
protects? Even a lay person like myself cannot be fooled with such legal
nonsense about coming under BHRI for protection. The UN Charter gives us all
the protection we need and not BHRI.
There are much more I intend to address in the coming days
on Facebook but I must warn that anybody supporting BHRI is jeopardizing
everything we are doing through Radio Biafra and Indigenous People of Biafra
registered at the United Nations.
BHRI is working with politicians and supporters of the
Boko Haram APC. We at Radio Biafra and Indigenous People of Biafra will deem it
an act of sabotage to support any entity that has been infiltrated by our
detractors and actively working to undermine the work we are doing.
Any person found supporting or contributing to BHRI will
be deemed an enemy of the people and will be removed from this struggle. We are
not in the business of messing about with Nigeria while our people are being
killed and deported. That type of spineless, duplicitous and compromised
freedom fighting is not for Radio Biafra and the Indigenous People of Biafra.
Bilie Human Rights Initiative cannot be trusted. Be warned!
Sometimes...I used to ask my self...why is it that
Nigerians and their leaders..are taking us for granted??? killing our people as
they like..as if we are chicken...yet nobody want to say anything about
it..even our leaders who are supposed to speak for us, keep silent simple
because of what they are gaining from the government of Nigeria... so my
people, let us do our best and leave the rest to God.. because I believe that
nothing is impossible to Him...
HEAR OUR CRY ..OH LORD AND LET OUR PRAYERS COME UNTO THEE...
GOD BLESS BIAFRA
COURT CASE UPDATE-
JUSTICE MOORE NOT YET IN
COURT AS NNAMDI
KANU UNLIKELY TO APPEAR
COURT CASE UPDATE-
JUSTICE MOORE NOT YET IN COURT AS NNAMDI KANU UNLIKELY TO APPEAR
As at 9:10am this morning, Justice Adume Moore is yet
to be seen at the Appeal Court premises in Abuja as Lawyers and both local and
international observers are seen within the court premises discussing.
There is also a
possibility that Nnamdi Kanu may not be appearing in court today. This is
according to the information from Nnamdi Kanu's younger brother to Family
Writers earlier this morning of which the reasons for such has not been made
known.
DETAINED IPOB LEADER GOES TO
COURT TODAY:
Ibeh Gift Amarachi reporting
Good
morning Biafrans and Lovers of Freedom,today been the 5th of May 2016,the
detained IPOB Leader Citizen Nnamdi Kanu,will be arraigned in Court of Appeal
Abuja. Following the adjournment on the 25th of April,the Bail appeal will be
heared today. Stay tuned and Put as FAMILY WRITERS bring to you Live report
from Court of Appeal Abuja.
BREAKING NEWS!!! Biafra: Appeal Court Finally Rules on
Kanu’s Bail Application
25th May 2016
ABUJA—–The
Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, dismissed the appeal that was
lodged before it by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra,
IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu and two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu,
had gone before the appellate court to challenge what they termed “strange
procedure” adopted in their trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The trio who
are answering to a six-count treason charge the federal government preferred
against them, in their consolidated appeal, alleged bias against trial Justice
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, 2015.
Meantime, in a
unanimous judgment on Wednesday, a three-man panel of Justices of the appellate
court led by Justice Abdul Northerner, dismissed th defendants’ appeal as
“grossly lacking in merit”.
The appellate court further declined to order the
release of the defendants on bail on the premise that allegations
against them are “grievous and serious”.
Justice
Northerner who read the lead judgment, said it was not in doubt the 1st
defendant, Kanu, has dual citizenship.
He said
Kanu’s possession of both Nigerian and British passports increased the
likelihood that he could jump bail if released from detention.
On the
procedure adopted by the trial court, the appeal 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 held.
Basically,
Kanu and his co-defendants, through their lawyer Chief Chuks Muoma, SAN, argued
before the appellate court that trial 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 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 said 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 FG’s application for secret trial, even as hey queried the propriety of
the court allowing ”masquerades” to testify against them.
Though
Justice Tsoho maintained that the subsequent order he made in respect of the
trial was in tandem with his ruling on February 9 that rejected secret trial of
the defendants, the defence lawyer, Muoma, SAN, yesterday, urged the appellate
court to set aside “the revised order for the identities of the witnesses to be
protected”.
Muoma, SAN, argued that
the trial court had become functus-officio on the matter, having earlier ruled
on the previous application by the prosecution.
It was his
argument that FG ought to have appealed against the initial ruling instead of
re-approaching the same court with a similar application.
He prayed
the appellate court to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to
transfer their case-file to another Judge for trial.
Nevertheless,
FG, in a counter-affidavit it filed before the appellate court, sought the dismissal
of the appeal which it said lacked merit.
The DPP
argued that the March 7 order of the high court did not amount to a variation of
the February 9 ruling.
FG insisted
that Kanu and the others were never denied fair-hearing by Justice Tsoho to
warrant re-assignment of the case-file to another Judge. It opposed their
request to be released on bail.
Besides, FG
accused the defendants of attempting to use frivolous interlocutory appeals to
delay their trial.
Kanu who was
hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra and Television, has been in
detention since October 14, 2015, when he was arrested by security operatives
upon his arrival to Nigeria from his base in the United Kingdom.
The
defendants were alleged to have committed treasonable felony, an offence
punishable under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria.
FG alleged
that they were the ones managing the affairs of the IPOB which it described as
“an unlawful society”.
Kanu was
alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into Nigeria, which he
used to disseminate “hate broadcasts”, encouraging the “secession of the
Republic of Biafra”, from Nigeria.
The accused
persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge on January 20, even as the
court ordered their remand at Kuje prison in Abuja.
No comments:
Post a Comment