On Wednesday, May 28, the Federal High Court in Abuja stood down proceedings in the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to deliver a ruling on the admissibility of evidence the Federal Government is attempting to introduce.
Justice James Omotosho made the decision after listening to the final arguments from both parties on whether the evidence—specifically, extra-judicial statements allegedly made by Kanu—should be accepted.
Federal Government counsel, Suraj Saida, SAN, and Kanu’s lead lawyer, Paul Erokoro, SAN, adopted their written addresses and debated the legality and propriety of the statements.
The debate over admissibility stems from Kanu’s claim that the statements were made under duress. As a result, on Wednesday, Justice Omotosho ordered a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether the statements were given voluntarily or under coercion.
Kanu alleged that Department of State Services (DSS) operatives interrogated him without access to legal representation, denied him daily fresh air despite his health condition, and threatened to obstruct his bail if he didn’t cooperate. He specifically named a DSS investigator, Mr. Brown Ukuaba, Assistant Director of Investigation, as the person who allegedly threatened him.
Further, Kanu told the court that his interrogators tried to compel him to make statements implicating former President Goodluck Jonathan and former Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha. He also claimed he was detained in an underground cell, kept in solitary confinement, and that video recordings presented in court had been edited.
In contrast, the prosecution’s DSS witness firmly denied all of Kanu’s allegations. The operative stated that Kanu was never coerced and was treated humanely, even receiving bottled water during interviews. The witness also said Kanu was not pressured to make any statements about Jonathan or Okorocha and that his testimonies were given “voluntarily and truthfully.”
Justice Omotosho is now expected to rule on the admissibility of the evidence following the trial-within-a-trial proceedings.
