This was because the court presided by Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye reversed her ruling which earlier granted the request of the defence for a trial within trial to determine the admissibility of the statements of the sixth‎ and seventh defendants. ‎The decision of the court was sequel to the submission of the prosecution led by Akin George that it would amount to wasting the time of the court if a trial is conducted within the main trial on the statement of the 6th and 7th defendants. Justice Ipaye ruled that the trial within trial was no longer neccessary owing to the fact that the statement of the 6th defendant was not confessional as claimed earlier. At its last sitting of the court, Justice Ipaye had granted the prayer of the defence counsel, Mr J.H Basir to the 6, 7,8, 9 and 10 defendants to conduct a trial within trial in order to determine if truly the statement of the 6th and 7th defendants said to be confessional were given by his clients. But at the resume of the hearing Thursday, the prosecution led by Mr. Akin George informed the court that the prayer of the defense counsel earlier granted by the court will only amount to a wild goose chase. George argued that it is only if the statement of the defendants are confessional that the the court could approve trial within trial. Citing section 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act, George said the‎ defence is seeking to approbate and reprobate by asking for a trial within trial as that would further drag the matter “The statement of the defendants before the court is not confessional. Therefore, the court has the power to over- rule the previous ruling on trial within trial.” “I thereby urged the court to overrule the previous pronouncement on the matter”, he said. In his response, counsel to the defendants, Mr Bashir told the court that the prosecution had failed to file an appeal against the previous ruling of the court. ‎ Said he: “It is the duty of the court to determine whether a statement is confessional or not”. Bashir urged the court to discountenance the objection raised by the prosecution. After listening to the submission of the parties, the judge in her fresh ruling withdrew the trial within trial that was earlier granted the defence. Thereafter, the defence moved a motion of notice before the court seeking an extension of the time given him for cross-examination in view of the fact that he is representing five defendants. Bashir argued that the time given to him was the same allotted to other counsels who are representing one or two defendants. He urged the court to allow him re-examine the third prosecution witness (PW3). However, the prosecution objected to the request of the defence saying that it was an attempt to draw the court back on matters that are already gone. Justice Ipaye in her ruling declined the prayer of the defence and said that the defence counsel had enough time to do his job. “I have scrutinised the applications by counsels and in the view of the facts before the court, I rule that the application is without evidence and is hereby dismissed.” Justice Ipaye subsequently adjourned the matter till April 20 and 21, 2016 for continuation of trial.]]>