From Godwin Tsa Abuja
The ongoing trial of the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, resumed on a dramatic note with a ban placed on Favour Kanu, the wife of his younger brother, Prince Fineboy Kanu, from attending the next three court sessions for streaming the proceedings of the court live on her Facebook page.
JusticeJames Omotosho made the order barring Favour from witnessing further proceedings upon finding out that she recorded the court’s proceedings and published it on her social media platform.
The judge expressed disbelief that she still went ahead to post the video online despite her phone being seized during a previous court date for a similar offence.
“I want to hear from her. Were you not the one who took your phone?” the judge asked.
“I did not give the order to forfeit that phone. I don’t know if she might be a wife to my brother (Nnamdi Kanu),” he added.
Prince Fineboy Kanu replied, “She is my wife.”
Justice Omotosho warned that no one should take actions that could delay the trial, assuring that justice would be done.
Meanwhile, the court has directed the Federal Government to ensure that all relevant documents and materials intended for trial are duly served on the defence team before being tendered in court.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, the court took a firm stance on trial procedures following confusion over legal representation and tension surrounding courtroom conduct.
A letter from one Charles Ude, claiming to be Kanu’s lawyer, sparked the court’s concern. But lead defence counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, disassociated the team from Ude’s claim, with Kanu affirming that Agabi remains his official legal representative.
In a bid to maintain order, the presiding judge stressed that only 16 counsel out of the 26 listed would be recognised in court. “I don’t want to be pushed to take this case virtually—we have the facility,” the judge warned.
The court also addressed a past infarction involving Favour Kanu, a relative of the defendant, who had recorded court proceedings in violation of directives.
The judge revealed she had also posted the content online. Kanu appealed for leniency on her behalf, pleading, “Please forgive her before she says a word.” The judge, however, barred her from attending the next three sittings.
The trial continued with the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness (PW1), identified as AAA. Under questioning by Agabi, the witness admitted to being unaware that several terrorism charges against Kanu had been struck out by the court.
He also lacked knowledge of the current status of many of the original 15-count charges.
Re-examined by lead prosecutor Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, the witness stated that Kanu’s activities amounted to agitation for the secession of parts of Nigeria.
The second prosecution witness (PW2), identified as BBB, testified that he was assigned by the Attorney General of the Federation to investigate Kanu.
He described the defendant as the operator of Radio Biafra and the founder of the Eastern Security Network.
Attempts by the prosecution to tender a letter authorising the witness’s investigation met stiff resistance from Agabi, who objected on the grounds that the document was not frontloaded.
The prosecution later withdrew the document, and the court granted the withdrawal.
The trial also saw disagreements over the admissibility of video evidence presented by the defence, which Kanu himself opposed.
The court ordered that all materials intended for trial must be served in advance and listed properly, stressing that no document would be admitted unless previously disclosed to the defence.
On a separate issue, the prosecution said it had filed a motion for the release of certain items already tendered as exhibits—specifically, items numbered 1 to 28 and 30 to 39.
The court directed that the motion must be refiled, with each exhibit explicitly identified and properly referenced.
While the prosecution expressed readiness to proceed with trial for three consecutive days as previously planned, Agabi requested a pause to allow for client consultation.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to May 7 for the continuation of trial, specifically for the examination-in-chief of the second witness, BBB.