Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu has sacked all members of his legal team.
Kanu, yesterday, during his trial before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, told the court that he was willing and ready to conduct his case by himself.
After the prosecuting Counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) announced his team for the prosecution, the leader of the team of the UPON leader, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) stood up and told the court they were only in court out of respect for the court.
Kanu said they were in court to formally announce their withdrawal from further participating in the trial.
Agabi explained that the reason for their decision”is because the defendant has taken this case back from us and we respect that.”
He gave the names of the other SANs, who are also withdrawing to include: Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Joseph Akubo (SAN), Paul Erokoro (SAN), Emeka Etiaba (SAN) and one other.
Following Agabi’s announcement, Justice James Omotosho turned to Kanu, who was in the dock, for his response.
Kanu confirmed sacking all his lawyers and told the court that he was willing and ready to conduct his case by himself.
Justice Omotosho then, ordered other members of the defendant’s legal team, who were in court, except the SANs, to vacate the courtroom immediately, a directive they promptly complied with.
The judge then, turned to the defendant and asked him to open his case.
In response, Kanu commenced by indicating his intention to make an oral submission, an indulgence the judge granted him despite opposition from Awomolo.
He said he would not open his defence as ordered by the court, because he was questioning the jurisdiction of the court to try him, adding: “This is a jurisdictional issue that goes to the heart of this case.”
He hinged his objection to the court’s jurisdiction on four grounds, the first being his claim that the Federal Government, through the prosecution, was in contempt of a Court of Appeal judgment, which he said ordered his acquittal.
Kanu argued that for the court to grant the prosecution audience, it (the prosecution) must first, comply with the said Court of Appeal judgment.
He said the second ground was that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and
and Customs and Excise Act, under which the charge against him was brought, are repealed laws.
On the third ground, he claimed to have been denied fair hearing. He said his continued detention in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) has denied him the opportunity for adequate consultation with his lawyers to enable him prepare for his defence.
He hinged the fourth ground on his claim that the medical report submitted to the court by a medical team empanelled by the president of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), which certified him fit to stand trial, was forged.
Kanu denied being examined by any medical team and that his blood and urine samples were never obtained for analyses.
He urged the court to declare the proceedings void and order his immediate release in line with the Court of Appeal judgment.
Reacting, Awomolo said Kanu deserved no formal response from the prosecution because all the allegations he made ought to be put down in the form of a sworn affidavit and effectively demonstrated to enable the other party respond appropriately.
Awomolo faulted Kanu’s claim that a Court of Appeal’s decision acquitted him, arguing that the said judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on December 15, 2023.
He said: “The judgments of the Supreme Court that was given on December 15 2023 has set aside the judgment they are claiming discharged him.
“If he has a preliminary objection he should file it and demonstrate all his claims,” Awomolo said.
The prosecuting lawyer also faulted Kanu’s claim that his right to fair hearing has been breached.
Awomolo argued that Kanu’s claim that the medical report was forged was an indictment on the senior lawyers, who were in his Legal team, who saw the report and found no fault in it.
He prayed the judge to determine all the issues that Kanu raised in his Thursday’s submission when delivering the final judgment.
In his intervention, Justice Omotosho noted that when the medical report was bought up in court on October 16, he sought the views of lawyers to both parties, who did not raise any objection to the report.
The judge said since the report has been admitted by the court, acted on same and made decisions based on it, the court could no longer go back on it.
He said all the decision taken by the court, based on the medical report, stand.
The judge noted that all the issues raised by Kanu in his Thursday’s submission were substantially raised in the no-case submission which the court overruled in a ruling delivered on September 26.
The judge said: “On the 26th of September 2015 I considered those issues and held that he has a case to answer. This was to enable him exercise his right to fair hearing to make his case.”
Justice Omotosho recalled that in the spirit of fair hearing, he vacated this courtroom on Wednesday from 9am to 2pm to enable Kanu and his lawyers have a private consultation session, despite the absence of evidence to support his claim that his conversation was being secretly recorded by the DSS’s whose custody he is being detained.
The judge said although all the issues raised by Kanu in his Thursday’s submission had previously been determined by the court, the defendant is not foreclosed, he can still raise them at the final written address.
He then proceeded to call on Kanu to open his defence and overruled him when the defendant attempted to insist on his objection to the court’s jurisdiction.
Justice Omotosho said: “I call upon and appeal to the defendant to open his defence.
I beg the defendant, in the name of the Almighty God, to comport himself and conduct his defence.
“This is the opportunity that the Constitution gives him under Section 36. It is a right that he can exercise or waive either expressly or by conduct.
“I beg and I appeal to the defendant to make use of the opportunity, given him by the Constitution, to put in his defence, except he choses to waive it either expressly or by conduct,” the judge said.
