Denying Lawyers And Journalists Access To Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Is Disturbing — Access To Justice Laments

A human rights and accountability group Access To Justice(A2Justice), has said that the continuing reports alleging that the denial of access to the Federal High Court (FHC) of legal representatives of Nnamdi Kanu as well as Journalists covering the trial are very disturbing.

A2Justice stated that Courts are public institutions and are under the control of the respective heads of courts.

This was made known in a statement on Thursday, signed by the Convener Joseph Otteh and the Project Director, Deji Ajare.

“From all indications, it appears as though the Chief Judge of the FHC has surrendered control over access to the Court, as pertaining to the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, to the Department of State Services (DSS).

The DSS appears now to be in absolute control over who has access to the FHC, and is exercising that power in a most arbitrary manner, preventing people with genuine interests in the defence of the defendant and in reporting the trial from gaining entry into the courtroom.

“Access to Justice condemns the continuing denial of access to Nnamdi Kanu’s trial courtroom for his legal defence team, as well as for Journalists who are conducting their professional duties and exercising their constitutional rights to report on the trial.

“The proceedings in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu are a matter with respect to which there is considerably high public interest and it is the responsibility of the court to ensure that every aspect of that trial meets with internationally accepted standards of a public and fair trial. This is, unfortunately, not being done.

“It is untenable and indefensible for the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to hand over control of physical access to Nnamdi Kanu’s trial courtroom to the DSS, the chief prosecutor in the case. The FHC must, in all respect, uphold the principle that the court is a fair, unbiased umpire, and will not allow one party enjoy any administrative, procedural or substantive advantage over another.

“The FHC is, of course, aware of the constitutional rule that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. The perception of the ordinary man, as has been iterated in many decided cases, is central to the question of justice being seen to be done. Many reasonable people, observing the way the court has surrendered control of its precincts to the DSS, and the manner the DSS is exercising its power over those precincts will fear that justice might not be done after all, in the trial.

“This is not to suggest, in anyway, that the trial Judge is in any way affected by the actions of the DSS, but the larger test is not whether the trial Judge was biased or not, but whether there might be a perception, by reasonable, ordinary people, that the defendant was prejudiced by the way the trial was conducted. The stakes in this case are far too high for any aspects of the trial to be mishandled,” A2Justice, added.

The group, therefore, urges the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John T. Tsoho, to take absolute control of the court.

“Chief Judge of the FHC must now re-take full control of the Court and determine issues of professional and public admittance to the court’s premises. If the FHC requires security back-up, it could request so, but limit the functions of such interventions to strictly security-related presence.”