Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja has reserved judgment in the cases involving three Lebanese and their two companies; and an alleged Boko Haram member, Mustaphar Umar.
The Lebanese – Mustapha Fawaz, Abdallah Tahini, Talal Ahmad Roda – and their companies – Amigo Supermarket and Wonderland Amusement Park Abuja – are being tried for alleged complicity in the illegal importation and storage of prohibited arms and ammunitions.
They are being tried on a 16-count charge of terrorism and related acts in connection with the last discovery of a large cache of arms and ammunition in a residential property in Kano.
Umar is being tried for his alleged involvement in the 2012 bombing of a building- SOJ plaza in Kaduna, which is occupied by three media houses, including Thisday, The Sun and The Moment newspapers.
Yesterday, Justice Ademola reserved judgment after parties adopted their final written addresses.
In the case involving the Lebanese, Acting Director Public Prosecution of the Federation, Simon Egede adopted for the prosecution, while Robert Clarke adopted for the defence.
Clarke argued neither Hezbollah nor its military wing, to which his clients were alleged to have belonged, has been declared a terrorist organization in the country.
He queried whether it was proper, under the court’s law to try the accused in Abuja, when the evidence before this court showed that the alleged offence was committed in Kano, about 500km away.
Clarke queried “whether the mere possession of foreign currency by the 2nd accused (Tahini), without further evidence to show how he acquired the money, was sufficient to charge a person under money laundering Act”.
Clarke submitted that the non physical presentation and production of the alleged cache of weapons has denied the judge the opportunity of determining whether the weapons were actually sophisticated armoury used by terrorists or mere toys.
He argued that what was tendered in evidence before the court were mere photographs, which according to him posed credibility question.
He denied the presence of the accuseds when when the photographs were taken in the house where the arms were recovered at No 3 Gaya Road Kano.
“This is a criminal trial where allegations should be proved beyond every reasonable doubt. The reason why no credibility should be attached to the photographs is that the accused persons were not around when they were taken, Clarke said.
Clarke cautioned that convicting the accused persons would pitch Nigeria against the international community, particularly Arab nations.
This, he said, was because Hezbollah is not an outlawed organisation in Nigeria and “there is no official gazette to that effect.
“Since there is no gazette before the court showing the declaration of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation in Nigeria and your Lordship is not the President of Nigeria, the situation therefore draws the carpet for counts one to six to fail because you cannot build something on nothing.
“Before your Lordship can convict the accused persons, it is compulsory that the court will declare Hezbollah and its military wing as a terrorist organisation. But then, it is only the President of Nigeria that has the constitutional power to make such declaration” Clarke argued.
He urged the court to discharge and acquit the accuseds
Egede objected to the issue of non physical production of exhibits 7A (alleged weapons) raised by Clarke.
“It is a new issue raised this morning in court, it was not canvassed. Therefore, I urge the court to discountenance it as it was not premised on any legal authority or decision of any superior court” Egede said.
He argued that the tendering of the photographs and video CDs in evidence were supported by Section 26(1) and Section 31(3) of the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA).
He reminded the court that the prosecution had made moves to move the court to Kano to see the recovered arms, but it declined.
On whether Hezbollah has been declared a terrorist organization in Nigeria, Egede argued that Section 40 of TPA has defined the term terrorist organization and that there was no need fro any presidential declaration or gazette in this case as far as the organisation’s activities fall within the definition of terrorism act as contained in Section 40.
Egede also argued that under the new amendment, Section 19(g) of the TPA, 2013, the said Act recognised international conventions which have equally defined terrorism acts, pointing out that as signatory to the convention; the provision applies in the country.
Justifying the power of the court to hear the case, Egede argued that Section 32(1) stipulates that the Federal High Court located in Nigeria, regardless of where terrorism offence was committed shall have jurisdiction to entertain such case.
He urged the court to convict the accused persons on all charges and sentence them accordingly.
In relation to the second case, Nureini Suleiman adopted for the defence while S.M. Labaran. Adopted for the prosecution.
While Suleiman prayed the court to free his client on the ground that the prosecution was unable to prove its case, Labaran urged the court to convict as the prosecution has sufficiently proved its case.
