Court Warns Defence Lawyers Against Delaying Trial of Four Suspects in DSS Operative’s Killing

Court Warns Defence Lawyers Against Delaying Trial of Four Suspects in DSS Operative’s Killing

Adjourns case to October 28

By Aviashima Toom, Abuja

The Federal High Court in Abuja has warned lawyers representing four suspects accused of kidnapping and killing an operative of the Department of State Services (DSS), Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh, against taking steps capable of delaying the trial.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning on Wednesday after defence lawyers, Kelvin Ekwe and Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, requested an adjournment, citing their unpreparedness to proceed with the trial.

The judge, however, described the case as crucial and said it must be determined expeditiously in the interest of justice.

The prosecution counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, told the court that the matter was scheduled for trial following the defendants’ plea of not guilty to the charges against them.

She also sought the court’s permission to conceal the identities of prosecution witnesses under Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

Oladunjoye urged the court to allow the witnesses to testify without disclosing their names, citing the nature of the case.

However, Ekwe, who represented the first and second defendants, opposed the application, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish that revealing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice the prosecution’s case.

He further argued that the application should be formally filed to enable the defence to respond appropriately and avoid being taken by surprise.

In response, Justice Abdulmalik asked the defence counsel to identify the legal provision requiring the prosecution to file a formal application before seeking such an order.

Ekwe cited Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

The prosecution subsequently countered his arguments.

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik upheld the prosecution’s request, holding that given the terrorism-related nature of the case, disclosing the identities of the witnesses would not serve the interest of justice.

The judge directed that the witness be identified in court as “AB” and warned that anyone who violated Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to a one-year jail term.

The court was subsequently informed by Uwadiegwu, counsel to the third and fourth defendants, that he was newly assigned to the case and needed additional time to study the case file.

Ekwe also told the court that the prosecution had only recently served him with video evidence, insisting that he was not ready to proceed with the trial.

Oladunjoye acknowledged that the video evidence had just been served but maintained that it would not be used during Wednesday’s proceedings.

 She urged the court to allow the trial to continue.

The prosecution counsel also argued that the absence of Ekwe at the previous sitting on October 6 had contributed to the adjournment of the case.

As both defence lawyers rose simultaneously to explain why the trial should be adjourned, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly conduct in her courtroom.

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

She added that proceedings before her court were expected to maintain a high level of compliance with established standards.

Justice Abdulmalik further explained that she would ordinarily not have scheduled the matter for hearing, given the numerous pre-election cases pending before the court.

According to her, she had at least nine judgments to deliver in pre-election matters before November 9.

However, she said she considered the DSS operative’s killing case sufficiently important to warrant an expeditious determination.

After listening to the parties, the judge granted a short adjournment but warned the defence against any further conduct that could delay the proceedings.

The case was subsequently adjourned until October 28 at the request of the defence lawyers.

Charges Against the Defendants

The four defendants—Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability—were arraigned before Justice Abdulmalik on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and kidnapping.

According to the prosecution, the defendants allegedly conspired to commit acts of terrorism and participated in the abduction of Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.

They were also accused of holding the DSS operative hostage and causing his death during the alleged operation.

The prosecution further alleged that the defendants belonged to the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and participated in activities allegedly connected to terrorism.

The suspects were additionally accused of unlawfully possessing firearms, including AK-47 and pump-action rifles, in connection with the alleged offences.

The charges followed investigations into the circumstances surrounding the abduction and killing of the DSS operative and the defendants’ alleged involvement in the incident.

The allegations are yet to be proven in court.