Court warns defence lawyers against delaying trial of 4 suspects accused of killing DSS operative

The Federal High Court ,Abuja has warned defence lawyers against taking steps capable of delaying the trial of four suspects accused of kidnapping and killing an operative of the Department of State Services (DSS), Ekpeyong Owoh.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the warning on Wednesday after lawyers to the defendants expressed their unreadiness to commence trial and sought an adjournment.

When the case was called, prosecution counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for trial following the defendants’ denial of the allegations against them.

She, however, urged the court to grant an order protecting the identities of prosecution witnesses pursuant to Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

Oladunjoye specifically prayed the court for permission to conceal the witnesses’ identities and prevent the disclosure of their names. But counsel to the first and second defendants, Kelvin Ekwe, opposed the prosecution’s oral application, describing it as unnecessary.

Ekwe argued that the proof of evidence served on the defence listed only one witness, identified as a DSS investigating officer. He contended that the prosecution had not established that disclosing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice its case. The lawyer further argued that the application ought to have been formally filed to enable the defence to respond appropriately and guard against being taken by surprise.

Justice Abdulmalik subsequently asked Ekwe to cite any law requiring the prosecution to file a formal application before seeking such an order.

In response, Ekwe relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

Oladunjoye, however, countered the defence counsel’s arguments.

In a brief ruling, Justice Abdulmalik upheld the prosecution’s application, holding that, given the terrorism-related nature of the case, exposing the identities of the witnesses would not serve the interest of justice.

The judge ordered that the trial proceed with the witness identified by the pseudonym “AB”.

She also warned that anyone who contravened Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to a one-year jail term.

However, the defence lawyers subsequently sought an adjournment.

Counsel to the third and fourth defendants, Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, told the court that he was appearing in the matter for the first time and needed more time to study the case file.

Ekwe also informed the court that the prosecution had only recently served him with video evidence, insisting that he was not prepared to proceed with the trial.

Responding, Oladunjoye acknowledged that the video evidence had just been served but maintained that the footage would not be used during Wednesday’s proceedings.

She urged the court to allow the trial to proceed, adding that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had earlier caused an adjournment.

Dissatisfied with the prosecution’s position, Ekwe and Uwadiegwu stood up simultaneously to address the court in support of their request for an adjournment.

Justice Abdulmalik, however, cautioned them against unruly conduct in her courtroom.

“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict.

“So, when I run my court, there should be 99.9 per cent compliance according to international best practice,” the judge said.

She explained that she would ordinarily not have listed the case for hearing because of the numerous pre-election matters before the court.

According to her, she had at least nine judgments to write in respect of pre-election cases, all of which had to be delivered before November 9.

The judge, however, said she considered the case crucial and believed it should be determined expeditiously.

After listening to both parties, Justice Abdulmalik granted a short adjournment but warned the defence lawyers against any action capable of delaying the trial.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter until October 28 at the instance of the defence.

The four defendants — Michael Okafor, alias Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, alias Ability — were arraigned before Justice Abdulmalik on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and kidnapping.

The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and participated in the abduction of Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.

They were further accused of holding the DSS operative hostage and causing his death during the alleged operation.

The prosecution also accused the defendants of belonging to the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), as well as participating in activities allegedly linked to terrorism.

In addition, the suspects were accused of unlawfully possessing firearms, including AK-47 rifles and pump-action guns, in connection with the alleged offences.

The charges followed investigations into the circumstances surrounding the abduction and killing of the DSS operative and the alleged activities of the defendants.

The allegations have yet to be proven in court.