“This Adjournment Is At The Instance Of The Defence” — Court Warns Lawyers Against Delaying Trial Of Four Men Accused Of Killing SSS Officer

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning on Wednesday after Kelvin Ekwe and Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, counsel for the defendants, sought an adjournment.

The defendants — Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability — were arraigned on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and kidnapping. They pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and abducted Ekpeyong Owoh, an SSS operative, while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.

They were also accused of holding him hostage and killing him.

The prosecution further alleged that the defendants belonged to the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network, and unlawfully possessed firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, Munirat Oladunjoye, counsel for the prosecution, asked the court for permission to conceal the identities of its witnesses pursuant to Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

Ekwe opposed the request, arguing that the prosecution had not shown how revealing the identities of the witnesses would prejudice its case.

He also contended that the application should be formally filed to enable the defence to respond and avoid being taken by surprise.

When the judge asked the defence counsel to cite a legal provision requiring a formal application, Ekwe relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

Oladunjoye opposed the argument, after which the court ruled in favour of the prosecution, holding that revealing the identities of witnesses in a terrorism case would not serve the interest of justice.

Justice Abdulmalik subsequently ordered that the prosecution witness be identified by the code name “AB.”

She also warned that anyone who contravened Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to a one-year jail term.

The proceedings later stalled after Uwadiegwu told the court that he had only recently taken over the case and needed additional time to study the case file.

Ekwe also said he had only recently received video evidence from the prosecution and was not prepared to proceed with the trial.

Oladunjoye, however, told the court that the video evidence would not be used during Wednesday’s proceedings.

She also argued that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had contributed to an earlier adjournment and urged the court to proceed with the trial.

As both defence lawyers rose to address the court over the request for an adjournment, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly conduct.

“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict,” the judge said.

“So, when I run my court, there should be 99.9 per cent compliance according to international best practice.”

Justice Abdulmalik said she would ordinarily not have listed the case for hearing because of the pre-election matters pending before the court.

She disclosed that she had at least nine judgments to write in pre-election cases, which must be delivered before November 9, but considered the terrorism case important enough to warrant an expedited trial.

The judge eventually granted a short adjournment but warned the defence against further delays.

“This adjournment is at the instance of the two defence counsel,” she said.

The matter was adjourned to October 28 for the commencement of trial.