The Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed Feb. 10 to rule
on whether or not it will dismiss the treason charges
preferred against the leader of the Indigenous People of
Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
The court would also rule on whether or not to quash
the charges preferred against three other defendants,
Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David
Nwawuisi, who were charged along with Kanu.
Similarly, the court would give a ruling on an application
bordering on the competence of the charge against
Kanu, the first defendant.
The four defendants are standing trial for alleged
treasonable felony and terrorism.
At the resumed hearing on Thursday, Kanu’s Counsel,
Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor, argued that his client’s application
challenging the charge against him was based on the
fact that there was no case against him.
“Our application was premised on the fact that the proof
of evidence attached to the charge cannot sustain the
charge because it did not disclose a prima facie case
against Kanu.”
According to him, the proof of evidence is empty,
baseless and unfounded and in that circumstance, the
court is required to quash the charge and discharge and
acquit the person involved.
“He is being accused of committing an offence of
treasonable felony and also conspiracy to commit
treasonable felony, the law requires that ingredients of
the said treasonable felony should be established.
“But the defendant was not found with any arms, was
not caught with anybody holding a meeting, never said
he was coming to overthrow the president of the
country.
“They are merely exercising their right to self-
determination which is clearly provided under article 20
of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights and
also under article 1 and 55 of the United Nations
Charter.’’
He said these were constitutional rights and could not
translate to a case of treasonable felony.
Counsel to the 2nd to 4th defendants, Mr Inalegwu
Adoga, Mr E.I Esene and Mr Maxwell Okpara, all made
similar arguments. They all held that the proof of
evidence attached to their clients’ charge did not
establish a prima facie case against them and should
be quashed.
Adoga, in his argument, said that his client was arrested
for his intentions and not because of an overt act,
adding that the prosecution’s case against his client
was based on mere sentiments.
On his part, Okpara added that his client was only
brought into the matter in order to convict the first
defendant. The prosecuting counsel, Mr Shuiabu
Labaran, opposed the applications on the grounds that
they had no substance.
The judge, Justice Binta Nyako, adjourned till Feb. 10 to
rule on the applications. Nyako had said on Tuesday
that the ruling on the applications would determine
whether the case would be terminated or continued.
Mr Osaro Odemwingie, a representative of the British
High Commission, was in court to witness the
proceedings, while placard carrying IPOB members were
outside the court complex singing and dancing.
