A Federal High Court in Abuja has been urged to order the detained leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu to enter a defence in the terrorism charge in respect of which he is being prosecuted.
Prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), who made this request during Friday’s proceedings, also urged the court to reject the no-case submission made by the defence.
He prayed the court to instead, order him to explain why he engaged in terrorism activities that promoted violence and destruction, including the killing of not less than 170 security officials.
Awomolo, while adopting the prosecution’s address in a opposition to the no-case submission made by Kanu, said the prosecution has supplied sufficient evidence in proof of all elements of the offences charged to warrant the court to call on the defendant to enter a defence.
He noted the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered many exhibits, including video and audio videmce, adding that as against the claim by defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), the reply address of the prosecution addressed all issues raised, to the effect that the no case submission is of no moment.
Awomolo, who prayed the court to dismiss the no-case submission, argued that all the court was required to do at this stage of the case was to take a panoramic view of the evidence led so far and determine whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the defendant to warrant his being called to enter a defence.
He noted that the defence, in its no-case submission, attacked the credibility of the witnesses, the record and evidence led so far, which is not what is required at this stage.
Stressing why court should reject the no-case submission, Awomolo noted that in both the video and audio evidence tendered by the prosecution, Kanu admitted being the leader of IPOB, which he knew was a proscribed group.
He added that Kanu also, in some other videos, admitted making broadcasts in which he allegedly called for violence and destruction.
Reading a portion the defendant’s address in support of his no-case submission, Awomolo faulted Kanu’s lawyer’s argument that his several broadcasts amounted to a clear case of boasting that did not require criminal prosecution.
Awomolo argued that the law prohibits statements that have the possibility of causing fear in the mind of the people.
He added: “Why will somebody say a terrorist, who boasted that security men and other people should be killed, should be allowed to go free?”
Awomolo argued that the aim of the defendant was to create the separate state of Biafra, and in the process not less than 170 security men were killed because of his boasting.
“Why was he boasting? Boasting is not the answer. If the defendant believe that he was merely joking and was a content creator, he should be made to answer to why he was boasting and creating fear in the mind of the people.
“When person is boasting and threatening death and violence, that cannot be said to be mere boasting,” Awomolo said.
He urged the court to call on the defendant to come and explain what his boasting was about.
Awomolo faulted claim by Agabi (a former Attorney General of the Federation) that the defendant has been in solitary confinement for 10 years now.
The prosecuting lawyer noted that Kanu, who was first arrested in 2015 was granted bail in 2017, which he enjoyed until 2022 when it was revoked on the grounds that he jumped bail.
Awomolo said the current detention of the defendant was upon an order of the court, which found that he jumped the earlier bail granted him.
He also accused the defence legal team of being behind the delays experienced in the case before now.
Awomolo added: “For three years, his counsel were responsible for the delay of trial. The delay had been the shenanigans of the defence team, not that of the prosecution.
