Court Warns Lawyers Against Delaying Trial of Four IPOB Suspects Over Alleged Murder of DSS Operative
The Federal High Court in Abuja has cautioned defence lawyers against conduct capable of delaying the trial of four suspected members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) accused of kidnapping and killing a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning on Wednesday while ruling on a prosecution application to protect the identities of its witnesses and considering requests by defence counsel for an adjournment.
The defendants are Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, also known as Ability.
They were arraigned on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism, kidnapping and other alleged offences. All four pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution alleged that the defendants 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 before killing him.
The defendants were further alleged to be members of IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and to have participated in activities linked to terrorism. The prosecution also accused them of unlawful possession of firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, applied for an order permitting witnesses to testify under protected identities, citing Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
She argued that protecting the witnesses’ identities was necessary given the nature of the terrorism-related charges.
However, Kelvin Ekwe, counsel to the first and second defendants, opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution had not established how disclosing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice its case.
Ekwe also contended that the application should be formally filed to give the defence an opportunity to respond and avoid being taken by surprise.
Read Also:
Justice Abdulmalik asked him to identify the legal provision requiring the prosecution to file a formal application before seeking such an order. The defence lawyer subsequently cited Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
In her ruling, the judge held that disclosing witnesses’ identities in a terrorism-related trial could undermine the interests of justice. She consequently directed that the trial proceed with a prosecution witness identified by the code name “AB”.
The judge also warned that anyone who violated Section 232(5) of the ACJA would be liable to a one-year jail term.
Proceedings later became contentious when the defence sought an adjournment.
Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, counsel to the third and fourth defendants, told the court that he was appearing in the case for the first time and needed time to study the case file.
Ekwe also said the prosecution had only recently served him with video evidence, arguing that he was not prepared to proceed with the trial.
In response, Oladunjoye acknowledged that the video evidence had recently been served but maintained that it would not be used during that day’s proceedings. She urged the court to allow the trial to continue, noting that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had contributed to an earlier adjournment.
When both defence lawyers attempted to address the court simultaneously, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly conduct and insisted on proper courtroom discipline.
“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict,” the judge said.
She explained that the court was handling a heavy workload, including several pre-election cases and at least nine judgments expected before November 9.
Despite the competing demands on her docket, the judge said she considered the terrorism case important and deserving of an expeditious hearing.
After hearing the parties, Justice Abdulmalik granted a short adjournment but warned the defence against further conduct capable of delaying proceedings.
The case was adjourned until October 28, 2026, for continuation of trial.
The allegations against the defendants remain unproven, as the trial is ongoing and they have pleaded not guilty.
By PRNigeria
