The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, foreclosed Nnamdi Kanu’s defence and adjourned until Nov. 20 for judgment in the alleged terrorism offences preferred against
By Taiye Agbaje
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, foreclosed Nnamdi Kanu’s defence and adjourned until Nov. 20 for judgment in the alleged terrorism offences preferred against him by the Federal Government.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after Kanu’s defence was foreclosed following his insistence that he would not enter his defence under a repealed laws.
Justice Omotosho held that Kanu, having exhausted the six days allocated to him by the court to conduct his defence, had waived his right to do so.
The judge said he would have extended the days allocated to Kanu to conduct his defence if he had opted to open it.
He said Kanu, having failed to utilise the opportunity given to him to conduct his defence, could not claim to have been denied the constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing.
“This court has given opportunity to the defendant under Section 36 as requires by the constitution and I will not allow this to continue.
“It is based on this, without hesitation, that I say that the defendant has waived his right,” Justice Omotosho said.
The judge, in the ruling, took time to review the history of the case and noted that Kanu had always been represented by lawyers since the case began in his court on March 29 when the defendant took his plea.
He said in the bid to determine the case expeditiously, the court granted an accelerated hearing.
The judge, however, observed that the defendant’s lawyers asked for adjornment on several occasions during the days allocated to the prosecution to conduct its case.
According to him, the defendant lawyer sought adjournment on April 29, May 2, May 8, May 14 and May 21 respectively.
The judge also observed that after Kanu sacked his lawyers, he engaged four of them, including P. A. N. Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Maxwell Opara and Mandela Umegburu, as his consultants in relation to the case.
He observed that the said consultants were also always present in court during every proceedings, including on Friday.
Justice Omotosho held that as it was the case in the Bible, when God gave Adams the opportunity to explain why he ate the apple, the court equally gave Kanu ample opportunity to enter his defence.
“I have, as a Christian, given the defendant the opportunity to defend himself.
“I have on some occasions appealed to him in the name of God and advised him to get the service of a lawyer knowledgeable in criminal procedure,” he said.
The judge held that, although the right to fair hearing is constitutional, the defendant could not complain of being denied the right since he, on his own volition, failed to utilise the opportunity given him to defend himself.
Justice Omotosho also held the defendant could not be compelled to utilise the opportunity for fair hearing, noting that he was free to waive it if he choses.
“The defendant has been given ample opportunity to defend himself in this case. I hold that the defendant has waived his right to open his defence,” he said.
The judge said the two motions filed by the defendant, in which he was challenging the court’s jurisdiction, would be determined at the time of the final judgment.
He said in the interest of justice the prosecution and defendants were deemed to have waived their rights to file final written addresses on the grounds that while Kanu is not a lawyer and the prosecution was represented by lawyers, the latter (the prosecution) would have an advantage over the defendant.
The judge then adjourned till Nov. 20 for judgment.
Earlier when the case was called on Friday, the judge asked Kanu to open his defence.
Kanu, who was sitting in the dock, rose to his feet and told the court that he could not proceed with the business of the day because he had been unable to file a fresh motion, with accompanying documents.
The judge then stood down the case for some minutes and invited officials of the court’s registry to the courtroom to enable Kanu file the documents and depose to the attached affidavit.
When Kanu completed the process of filling the fresh motion, the case was recalled, following which the defendant moved the motion, dated Nov. 6, but filed on Nov. 7.
Arguing the motion, Kanu queried the jurisdiction of the court to try him based on the charge, which he claimed was invalid on the grounds that it was based on repealed laws.
Kanu submitted that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45 LFN 2004 on which the charge was hinged, had been repealed.
He further argued that the failure of the court to take judicial notice that the laws had been repealed rendered the proceedings so far conducted in the case a nullity.
Kanu claimed that his trial was a conspiracy and had been pre-determined, accusing the British authorities of wanting him to be convicted and jailed.
He alleged that he learnt of the British authorities’ intention about his fate about one and half years ago.
But Justice Omotosho said he was unaware of Kanu’s claim.
“You said the British said this over one year ago?
“I know I was not the judge then. Because you said your case is pre-determined, I want to say this that I do not have any relationship with the British authorities,” the judge said.
When the judge asked Kanu if he was now ready to open his defence, he responded thus: “I am ready my lord but I need to know under which law I am being tried.”
Kanu,, then, urged the court to strike out the charge and proceeded to order his release.
When he concluded his submission, Kanu commended the judge for being fair in his handling of the case, saying: “I am most grateful that you are guiding this proceeding the way it should.”
Responding to the motion, the prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, said he had no need to file a counter affidavit to Kanu’s motion, but would rely on the exhibit attached to the motion Kanu just moved.