ABUJA — Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has cautioned defence lawyers representing four suspected members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) against actions capable of delaying their trial over the alleged kidnapping and killing of a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.
The judge issued the warning on Wednesday while ruling on the prosecution’s application to protect the identities of its witnesses and considering requests by defence counsel for more time to prepare for the trial.
The defendants are Michael Okafor, popularly known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, also called Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, alias Ability.
They were arraigned on September 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism, kidnapping and other alleged offences. All four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
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 further accused of holding the DSS operative hostage before allegedly killing him.
The prosecution also alleged that the defendants were members of IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and participated in activities connected to terrorism.
They were additionally accused of unlawfully possessing firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun, in connection with the alleged crimes.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, told the court that the case was scheduled for trial following the defendants’ denial of the allegations.
Oladunjoye subsequently sought the court’s permission to conceal the identities of prosecution witnesses, relying on Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
She argued that the sensitive nature of the terrorism-related case justified protecting the witnesses’ identities during their testimony.
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 maintained that the application should be formally filed to allow the defence to examine it and respond appropriately, rather than being taken by surprise.
In response, Justice Abdulmalik asked the defence counsel to identify the legal provision requiring the prosecution to submit a formal application before seeking such an order.
Ekwe cited Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
In her ruling, the judge agreed with the prosecution that revealing witnesses’ identities in a terrorism-related trial could undermine the interests of justice.
She therefore ordered that the trial proceed with a prosecution witness identified by the code name “AB”, rather than having the witness’s identity publicly disclosed.
The judge also warned that any person who contravened Section 232(5) of the ACJA would face a one-year jail term.
Defence Requests Adjournment
Despite the ruling, proceedings were interrupted by fresh requests from the defence for an adjournment.
Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, who represents the third and fourth defendants, informed the court that he was appearing in the matter for the first time and needed additional time to familiarise himself with the case file.
Ekwe also told the court that the prosecution had only recently served him with video evidence, arguing that he was not adequately prepared to proceed with the trial.
Responding, Oladunjoye acknowledged that the video evidence had recently been served but maintained that it would not be used during the day’s proceedings.
She urged the court to allow the trial to continue, pointing out that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had contributed to an earlier adjournment.
The situation became tense when both defence lawyers stood up simultaneously to address the court on their requests for more time.
Justice Abdulmalik intervened, cautioning the lawyers against unruly conduct and insisting that courtroom proceedings must be conducted with decorum.
“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict,” the judge said.
She emphasised that the highest standards of discipline and professional conduct must be maintained in her courtroom.
Judge Cites Heavy Workload, Insists on Speedy Trial
Explaining the need to avoid unnecessary delays, Justice Abdulmalik disclosed that the court was handling a heavy workload, including several pre-election cases and at least nine judgments scheduled for delivery before November 9.
She said the competing demands on the court’s docket would ordinarily have made her reluctant to schedule the matter for hearing at that time.
However, the judge stressed that the terrorism-related case was too important to be unnecessarily delayed and should be determined expeditiously.
After hearing arguments from both sides, she granted a short adjournment to enable the defence lawyers to prepare adequately for the proceedings.
Nevertheless, she warned counsel against any further actions capable of frustrating the timely conclusion of the trial.
The case was subsequently adjourned until October 28, 2026, for the continuation of trial.
The four defendants remain accused persons, and the allegations against them are yet to be determined by the court.
Source:@ZagazolaMakama
About The Author
