Mazi Nnamdi Kanu may be tried secretly under Nigeria laws that allow restricted terrorism trial; Ezeife, Uwazurike, Ojobu to represent Ohanaeze at trial
It has been revealed that the Nigerian government may rely on a 2013 law, to try the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who is expected to appear in court tomorrow, Monday, July 26, 2021.
This is as the Professor George Obiozor-led Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, the apex pan Igbo organisation has announced that former Governor of Anambra state and elder statesman, Dr Chukwuemeka Ezeife, National Legal Adviser of Ohanaeze, Bar Joseph Ojobu and former President of Aka Ikenga, Chief Goddy Uwazurike will be representing Ohanaeze on a watching brief at the trial. Dr. Ezeife will be leading the delegation.
Sources said that the Nigerian government can try Kanu “under stealth circumstances,” citing Nigeria’s Terrorism Act of 2013 which is said to give “the court the powers to conduct such trial under more restrictive circumstances as is the case in certain parts of the country.”
These laws, the source said “are in line with global standards including those of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 – Sections 802-811.
The source stressed that according to the Practice Direction and Protocol of Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, Section 34 subsection 3, “The court may also decide, in the public interest and national security that (a) all or any of the proceedings pending before the court shall not be published in any manner; and (b) that such proceedings shall be adjourned and the accused persons detained pending when the Attorney-General is able to guarantee the protection of persons and safety of the witnesses and other persons involved in the matter.”
Similarly, the source insisted, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015 (Section 233) subsection 1, says “A trial for the offence referred to in subsection (4) of this section may not, where the court so determines, be held in an open court.
Subsection 2 adds that, “The names, addresses, telephone numbers and identity of the victims of such offences or witnesses shall not be disclosed in any record or report of the proceedings and it shall be sufficient to designate the names of the victims or witnesses with a combination of alphabets.
Subsection 3 provides more details on how proceedings will be conducted. “Where in any proceeding the court deems it necessary to protect the identity of the victim or a witness, the court may take any or all of the following measures: (a) Receive evidence by video link; (b) Permit the witness to be screened or masked; (c) Any other measure that the court considers appropriate in the circumstance.
With regards to the safety of witnesses that will be called during the proceedings, “(Section 34 – “(1) states that, “the court may, on its own or on a motion by the Attorney-General or a relevant law enforcement or security agency, protect a witness or any person in any proceeding before it where it is satisfied that the life of the person or witness is in danger and take such measures as it deems fit to keep the identity and address of the witness or person secret.
According to subsection 2 of the same section, “The measures which the court may take under subsection (1) of this section may include the- (a) holding of the proceeding at a place to be decided by the court; (b) avoidance of the mention of the real name and address of the witness or person in its orders, judgments or records of the case, which are accessible to the public; or (c) issuing of a direction for ensuring that the identity and address of the witness or person are not disclosed; (d) undertaking the proceeding in camera in order to protect the identity and location of witnesses and other persons.”
The source, however, noted that in the case of Kanu, the Nigerian government has vowed that a fair hearing will be conducted, stressing that this is in line with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights that states that, “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Already, there are indications that members of IPOB may be barred from witnessing the trial of Kanu who was arrested in Kenya and flown back to Nigeria under still very controversial circumstances and has since been in detention in a Directorate of State Services (DSS) facility in Abuja, the Federal Capital.
