Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has abandoned his earlier plan to call witnesses in his ongoing trial for alleged terror offences.
Kanu told a Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday that he had realised that there was no valid charge against him. He also said that evidence so far has not established any case against him to make him enter a defence.
The IPOB leader consequently asked the court to either release him or grant him bail.
The court had on October 24 adjourned till yesterday for Kanu to open his defence. He had written to the court, indicating his intention to call witnesses and applied for a witness summons.
Believing that Kanu would open his defence yesterday, the court reserved about five seats, with each labelled “summoned witness.”
Evening Roundup: Stories making waves in The Nation – The Nation0:00 / 0:00
When the case was called, prosecution lead counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), announced appearance, along with some other lawyers.
Kanu also announced his name and said he was representing himself, following which Awomolo reminded the court that the business of the day was for the defendant to open his defence.
Responding, Kanu, who earlier sat in the dock, stood up and said he had gone through the case files and found that “there is actually no charge against me.”
He argued that there was no extant law in the country on which the prosecution could premise its case, adding: “There is no case against me. If there is no case against me, it will be futile for me to enter any defence.”
At that point, Justice James Omotosho intervened and took time to explain to Kanu that in a criminal trial, a defendant only has three options after the prosecution has closed its case.
Justice Omotosho said the first option was for the defendant to make a no-case submission, and when overruled, the defendant is then required to enter a defence.
He said that where a defendant chose not to open his/her defence or conduct any defence at all, such a defendant can decide to rest on the prosecution’s case, and then file a written address, to which the prosecution will be required to reply, and the court delivers judgment.
After listening to the judge’s explanation, Kanu said: “My position is that there is no charge against me. There is no need for me to enter a defence. What I’m saying is that there is no case against me.”
The judge then reminded him that he had earlier ruled on his no-case submission and held that he had a case to answer. He told the IPOB leader that the ruling subsisted.
Kanu then applied to the court for a week’s adjournment to enable him to file a written address to support why he insisted that no valid charge was pending against him. He argued that he was subjected to a needless trial and detention.
He said: “I need a week to file a written address to the effect that there is no charge against me. If there is no extant law in Nigeria on which the charge could stand, there cannot be a case.
‘’You should please release me today(yesterday or grant me bail.”
Responding, Awomolo said that from what the defendant said and the option he has taken, the court should adjourn for judgment.
Awomolo said: “I take it that the defendant said he is not putting in any defence, because there is no valid charge against him.
“I want to submit that this position is conclusive of the defendant’s defence. I know that he took a plea to the counts against him, and he pleaded not guilty.
‘’We led evidence, and he cross-examined our witnesses.
“Now that he said he has no defence, the case has been brought to a close.”
Urging the court to adjourn for judgment, Awomolo said the option chosen by Kanu implies that he has opted to address the court on a point of law as his defence in the case.
In his intervention, Justice Omotosho noted that the defendant was not saying outright that he has no defence, but that the charge against him cannot be sustained.
He added: “That is also a defence. In that case, he will have to put that down in a written submission that will be served on the prosecution, who will also respond.”
The judge then proceeded to advise Kanu to consult experts before he decides on how to proceed henceforth.
Justice Omotosho said: “There is a need for you (Kanu) to consult people who are knowledgeable in criminal prosecution to advise you on how to proceed.
“I am beginning you in the name of God Almighty, to consult properly. I am inclined to grant you the adjournment you seek.
I am inclined to allow him to consult those who are knowledgeable in criminal law.
“I know you are educated, but you are not a lawyer, you need to consult experts in the field. Please make adequate consultation. This is not economics. This is a criminal prosecution.”
“Please, my brother, make adequate consultation. Criminal cases are not like every other case. I took the opportunity to explain to the defendant, because he is not a lawyer,” he said.
The judge added that he has a duty to explain to the defendant the consequences of his decision not to enter a defence.
Justice Omotosho said that after Kanu sacked his lawyers, he had wanted to refer the case to the Legal Aid Council or any lawyer who was willing to take the case pro bono, but the defendant said he would defend himself.
“Even at that, I still have a duty to explain the consequences of his option to him because he is not a lawyer. Please, make consultation,” the judge said.
The judge then gave Kanu till Friday, within which he should file his written address and serve it on the prosecution.
He adjourned till November 4, 5 and 6 for either the adoption of the written addresses or for Kanu to open his defence should he choose to change his mind.
