News Obiaks News

   The Court of Appeal Division in Abuja has dismissed the appeal filed before it by the detained leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

In its judgment yesterday, the three man panel of justices of the Appellate Court headed by Justice Abdul Aboki, unanimously held that Kanu's appeal lacked merit.

The court also refused to order the release of the defendants on bail, saying the allegations against them are "grievous and serious"�.

Justice Aboki, who read the lead judgement, said it was not in doubt that the 1st defendant, Kanu, has dual citizenship, adding that his possession of both Nigerian and British passports increases the likelihood that he could jump bail if released from detention.

On the procedure adopted by the trial court, the Appeal Court maintained that Justice John Tsoho had the discretion to decide how the proceedings should be conducted.
 
"The lower court has the power to exercise its discretion on the matter and the exercise of such discretion by the trial judge did not amount to denial of fair hearing to the defendants.

"The issues are resolved against the appellants and the ruling of the trial court is hereby upheld"�, the Appellate Court held.

Kanu and two other pro-Biafra agitators, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu, had gone to the Appellate Court to challenge the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja that denied them bail and also held that the Federal Government's witnesses should be shielded.

Kanu and his co-accused are being tried on a six count treason charge preferred against them by the Federal Government.

They had alleged bias in their consolidated appeal against Justice Tsoho, who not only declined to grant them bail, but also permitted the prosecution to shield the identity of eight witnesses billed to testify in the matter.

Justice Tsoho had equally rejected the application praying him to discharge and acquit the three defendants in line with Section 351(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

Kanu and his co-defendants, through their lawyer, Chief Chuks Muoma (SAN), argued before the appellate court that Justice Tsoho erred in law "when having refused the application for the witnesses of the prosecution to testify behind screens, or masked"� on February 19, 2016, "suddenly varied the order in the ruling delivered on March 7, 2016 on a mere oral application by the respondent."�

They maintained that the variation order was made on the basis of a mere oral application by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mohammed Diri, who had informed the trial court that witnesses scheduled to testify against the defendants said they would not appear unless they were allowed to wear masks or their identities shielded from both lawyers and people observing the proceeding.

Justice Tsoho gave an order permitting the witnesses to testify behind a screen, stressing that the decision did not amount to a variation of a previous ruling that prohibited the witnesses from appearing in mask.

The defendants had earlier opposed Federal Govern�ment's' application for secret trial, even as they queried the propriety of the court allowing "masquerades"� to testify against them.