BY VIVIAN MICHAEL, ABUJA
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has directed the prosecution to serve all relevant documents, materials, and video evidence intended for use at trial on the defence team of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), before they can be tendered in court.
The judge gave the order during the resumed cross-examination of the first prosecution witness (PW1AAA), who testified from behind a screen. Under questioning by defence counsel Kanu Agabi, SAN, the witness admitted he was unaware that several terrorism-related charges against Kanu had already been struck out by the court. He also said he did not know the current status of many of the original 15-count charges.
During re-examination by the lead prosecutor, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, the witness maintained that Kanu’s activities amounted to an agitation for the secession of parts of Nigeria.
The second prosecution witness (PW2BBB) told the court he had been assigned at one point to investigate Kanu. In his evidence-in-chief, he claimed that Kanu operated the outlawed Radio Biafra and founded the Eastern Security Network (ESN).
The prosecution then attempted to tender a letter authorising the witness’s investigation. However, defence counsel Agabi objected, arguing that the document was not frontloaded as required by law. The prosecution subsequently withdrew the document, and the court granted the withdrawal.
The courtroom also witnessed a heated exchange over the admissibility of video evidence presented by the defence, which Kanu himself opposed. Agabi raised objections, stating: “The document is not part of the proof of evidence.”
Responding, Awomolo argued that the document should have been served alongside a statement of facts. “My Lord, we are not worried about admissibility. This is a criminal matter,” he said. “In the interest of justice, we take their documents and come back. Let’s have everything in our hands. It would not be fair to cross-examine the witness without being served. We were not served. If we were served, we would come prepared. Let them serve us; this is a monumental case.”
Agabi, pressing further, insisted, “This video must be attached to this letter to become proof of evidence. That is when it would be accepted.”
Ruling on the matter, Justice Omotosho held that no document or material would be admitted into evidence unless it had been properly disclosed to the defence ahead of time. He reaffirmed that all materials intended for trial must be duly listed and served in advance.