The Federal Government yesterday called its first witness testimony behind a barricade in the treason charge preferred against four members of the Indigenous People of Biafra, (IPOB), at the Federal High Court Abuja.
The witness, simply identified as Mr. AB, gave his testimony behind a barricade, where only the judge, Justice Binta Nyako, the defendants and the counsel could see him as he was shielded from the public.
Leading AB in evidence, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran, counsel to the Department of State Security Services (DSS), the prosecuting agency gave him the assurance that he was fully protected by the court.
AB told the court that out of the four defendants in the dock, he could only confidently tell the court about the first defendant, Bright Chimezie.
The witness told the court that he met Chimezie in 2016 when he was brought to the DSS office for interrogation.
“My boss asked me to interview him and in the process, he told me why and where he was arrested. He also told me that he is a member of IPOB and that he joined while in Port Harcourt.
“He also said that he took a delivery imported by the group, a container from Lagos to Ihiala, Anambra to the compound of Benjamin Madubugwu, the second defendant.
“It was also revealed that Chimezie, in 2016 was in charge of the welfare of the members of the group and he collected money from some of the group sponsors based outside Nigeria for the members.”
Under cross examination by Mr Chukwudi Igwe, counsel to Chimezie, the witness told the court that he was not part of the officers that arrested Chimezie and that he was only asked to interview him.
He also told the court that Chimezie, in the statement he volunteered to the DSS, said that when the container he took to Madubugwu’s house was opened on arrival of Nnamdi Kanu, it contained a radio transmitter.
When asked by a member of the defence team, Mr Eric Ifere if he knew of any law as at 2016 where it was stated that belonging to IPOB was an offence, he answered in the negative.
Justice Nyako adjourned the matter until May 21 for continuation of trial.
The Federal Government on March 20, re-arraigned Chimezie, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, on an amended three-count charge.
Their re-arraignment was sequel to the severance of their trial from that of Nnamdi Kanu, whose whereabout had been unknown since September 2017.
They are standing trial for charges bordering on conspiracy to commit treasonable felony, improper importation of goods and illegal possession of firearms.
They all pleaded not guilty to the three-counts preferred against them.
Justice Nyako had maintained that although the trial itself would not be secret, the identity of witnesses would be protected from the public.
Tag: IPOB
-
IPOB: Fed Govt’s first witness testifies behind barricade
-
IPOB: Fed Govt begins separate trial of Kanu’s co-defendants
THE Federal Government yesterday began the trial of four men earlier charged with the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu on offence of treasonable felony.
The four, some of who are IPOB members – Bright Chimezie, Chidiebere Onwidiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi – were yesterday arraigned before the Federal High Court, Abuja on a three-count amended charge.
Upon request by parties, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, agreed to a separate trial of the four owing to the sudden disappearance of Kanu, who was earlier listed as first defendant in the old charge.
At their arraignment yesterday, the defendants pleaded not guilty to the amended charge, following which the prosecution lawyer, Shuiabu Labaran, sought a brief adjournment to enable him open his case.
Defence lawyers objected to a brief adjournment. The lawyers said they were served with the amended charge the previous day and required sufficient time to consult with their clients.
They also sought the transfer of the clients from the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) to Kuje prison, Abuja.
Justice Nyako allowed the defence lawyers one hour to discuss with the clients in court.
She said the trial would not be secret one as being misinterpreted, but that it was only the identity of witnesses that would be protected from the public.
The judge adjourned to tomorrow for the prosecution to open its case.
The three counts, to which Chimezie, Onwidiwe, Madubugwu and Nwawuisi pleaded, read:
“That you, Bright Chimezie, Chidiebere Onwidiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawuisi and Nnamdi Kanu (at large), in 2014 and 2015, in Nigeria and London, conspired to broadcast on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu and other areas within the jurisdiction of the court, for states in the South-East and South-South zones, and other communities in Kogi and Benue states, to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to constitute same into a Republic of Biafra, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap. C77 of 2004.
“That you, Bright Chimezie and one Nnamdi Kanu, now at large, between March and April, 2015, imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulusiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, within the jurisdiction of the court, a radio transmitter known as TRAM 50L, concealed in a container of used household items, which you declared as used household items, and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 47 (2) (a) of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C77 of 2004.
“That you, Benjamin Madubugwu, sometimes in October 2015, had in your possession, in your house at Ubulusiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, one Emerald Magnum Pump Action gun and one Delta Magnum Pump Action gun as well as 41 cartridges/ammunition without lawful authority or licence, an offence contrary to Section 27c (b) (1) of firearms Act, Act. F28 of the laws of Nigeria.
-
IPOB appeals proscription order
The outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has asked the Court of Appeal to upturn its proscription and declaration as a terrorist organisation.
Justice Adamu Kafarati of the Federal High Court on September 22, 2017, made the order while ruling on an ex parte application by Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN).
On January 18, Justice Kafarati rejected a motion by IPOB, seeking among others, the reversal of the order.
In an appeal filed yesterday by its lawyer Ifeanyi Ejiofor, IPOB urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire decision by the Federal High Court, including the order proscribing it and declaring it a terrorist group.
The group, in the appeal in which it raised five grounds, argued that the mandatory statutory condition requiring the President’s approval, under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, was not met.
It also argued that the memo purportedly giving an approval to the AGF’s request for the proscription of IPOB was signed by the Chief of Staff to the President, Mr. Abba Kyari, instead of President Muhammadu Buhari himself as stipulated by law.
IPOB argued that “the trial judge erred in law, when he ruled that the mandatory statutory condition requiring president’s approval, under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, was satisfied, on the authority of the Memo of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation to the President dated September 15, 2017, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”
It stated that: “A cursory look at the Memo of the Attorney General of the Federation dated 15th day of September 2017, addressed to President Muhammadu Buhari, being relied upon or referred to by the learned trial judge, as constituting the mandatory President’s approval granted before an application Exparte for the proscription of the appellant’s activities and its designation as terrorist organisation, was made to the court, shows that it is a mere memo from the Attorney General of the Federation to the President requesting for the said President’s approval, prescribed under Section 2 (1)(C) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, and not the mandatory President’s approval envisaged under the Act.
“The purported President’s approval dated the September 18, 2017 addressed to the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation & Minister of Justice, captioned “Approval of the President, Commander-In-chief of the Armed Forces for the declaration/proscription of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 2(I) (A) (B) & (C) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013”, was signed by ABBA KYARI, designated as Chief of Staff to the President, and was not signed by the President as required under Section 2 (1)(C) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013.
“Under Section 40 of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, which deals with the interpretation of words or phrases, the word “President” as used in the Act, refers and only means the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and acts specified under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act to be done by the President must be done by the President himself, the Act does not provide for this specialised power to be delegated to any officer, staff or personnel of the President to act, on behalf of the President.
“The important condition that the President will have to give his approval was neither satisfied by the Attorney General’s memo of September 15, 2017 nor corrected by the purported approval signed by the Chief of Staff to the President.
“There was no valid approval given by the President in the Memo, in satisfaction of the mandatory requirement under section 2 (1)(C) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.”
The appellant argued in the second ground of appeal that “the learned trial judge erred in law, when upon his formulation of issues arising for determination in the ruling delivered on the January 18, 2018, and in consideration therefore, arrived on findings of facts that were grossly faulted by non-evaluation of affidavit evidence placed before the court, and recondite issues of law set out for the trial court’s determination, by the appellant; thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”
-
IPOB appeals proscription order
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on Thursday filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in Abuja against the Federal High Court’s proscription order.
Justice Adamu Kafarati had on September 20, 2017 granted the order while ruling on an ex parte application filed by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN).
Justice Kafarati on January 18 rejected a motion by IPOB, seeking reversal of the proscription order.
In an appeal filed by its lawyer, Infeayi Ejiofor, IPOB wants the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire decision of the Federal High Court including the one declaring it a terrorist organisation.
The group raised five grounds of appeal, claiming that the mandatory statutory condition requiring the President’s approval under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, was not met.
IPOB also argued that the memo which purportedly gave approval to the AGF’s request for its proscription was signed by the Chief of Staff to the President, Abba Kyari, instead of President Muhammadu Buhari himself as stipulated by law.
-
IPOB: Court to try Kanu separately
Fixes Feb 28 for Abaribe, others to account for IPOB leader’s whereabouts
A Federal High Court in Abuja has agreed to a separate trial for the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
Justice Binta Nyako granted an application by the prosecution on Tuesday and ordered that Kanu’s trial be separated from those of his co-defendants.
Kanu was in 2015 charged before the court with three others on treasonable felony charges.
The others are the National Coordinator of IPOB, Chidiebere Onwudiwe; an IPOB member, Benjamin Madubugwu; and a former Field Maintenance Engineer seconded to the telecommunication company, MTN, David Nwawuisi.
The court, in a ruling on April 25, 2017, granted bail to Kanu, but rejected others’ bail application.
Kanu has ceased to attend court, with his lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor claiming he (Kanu) has been since some soldiers invaded his home in September last year.
On Tuesday, his co-defendants (who are in prison custody) were brought to court, Kanu was absent.
The development prompted the prosecution lawyer, Shuaibu Labaran to apply that the trial be separated to prevent further delay.
Labaran noted that Kanu’s continued absence from court since he was granted bail in April 2017 has frustrated progress in the case
He said: “In the circumstance, the prosecution shall be asking for the indulgence of your lordship to separate the trial so that progress can be made in this matter.”
Lawyers to the defendants did not object to Labaran’s application, following which the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako granted it.
Justice Nyako agreed with the prosecution that there was the need to separate Kanu’s trial from the others in order “to meet the justice of the case”.
Read Also: IPOB: No evidence Kanu is in Army’s custody — Court
She said: “I hereby separate the trial of the first defendant from the rest of the defendants.”
The judge also directed the prosecution to ensure that the charges were amended and served on the defendants before the next trial date.
Upon complaint from Chukwudi Igwe, lawyer to another IPOB member, whose name has been added as defendant in an amended charge, Bright Chimezie, Justice Nyako directed the prosecution to act on his case.
Igwe had complained that the State Security Service was holding his client despite an order by a Federal High Court in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, directing that he be released.
He said, if by the next trial date the prosecution failed to reflect his client’s name in the fresh amendment to the charge, he would apply that the charge be struck out against Chimezie.
The judge subsequently adjourned to March 20 for further proceedings
Justice Nyako however adjourned to February 28 ( at noon) for Kanu’s three sureties, including Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, to either produce the IPOB leader in court or show cause why each of them should not forfeit his N100m bail bond.
The court had at the last proceedings on December 5, 2017, adjourned to yesterday for the sureties to explain why Kanu suddenly stopped attending court and account for his whereabouts.
Abaribe has filed two application. One is asking the court to discharge him as surety to Kanu, while the other wants the court to inspect Kanu’s house in Abia State, where he was said to have been last seen.
-
IPOB: No evidence Kanu is in Army’s custody — Court
A Federal High Court in Abuja said yesterday that there were no evidence supporting the claim by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) that its fleeing leader, Nnamdi Kanu was being held the Nigerian Army.
Justice Binta Nyako, in a ruling yesterday, rejected an application by IPOB, seeking to compel the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) to produce Kanu.
The ruling was on the application by IPOB seeking “an order of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, commanding the respondent (Buratai), to produce the applicant in court.”
IPOB had, in a supporting affidavit, claimed not have not seen or heard from Konu since September 14, 2017, when men of the Nigerian Army allegedly invaded his house “on a murderous raid, where life and mortar bullets were fired on unarmed and defenceless populace, leaving 28 persons dead and abducting many”.
The COAS, in a counter-affidavit, denied knowledge of Kanu’s whereabouts. He said contrary to claims in the suit, soldiers who were deployed to the South-East for ‘Operation Python Dance II, did not have any contact whatsoever with Kanu on September 12 or 14, or anytime thereafter as alleged.
He added that the Nigerian Army did not, at any time, arrest or take Kanu into custody within the period the military operation lasted. He also denied the allegation that soldiers invaded the IPOB leader’s house in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State.
In her ruling yesterday, Justice Nyako observed that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to convince the court that Kanu was indeed in the custody of the Nigerian Army.
The judge said: ”The doctrine of last seen”, which the applicant relied upon, even though applicable in murder cases, has no statutory backing.
Justice Nyado, who observed that Kanu was listed as the first applicant, said she was surprised that someone said to be missing, was the one seeking reliefs from the court.
She said the supporting affidavit filed by Kanu’s lawyer, Infeanyi Ejiofor, contained criminal allegations against the Nigerian Army that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
The judge added: “Has the applicant placed enough evidence to show that the respondent was the last to see the applicant? Was there any evidence that he was last seen with even one soldier?
“The onus of proof will not shift from the applicant to the respondent except the applicant is able to prove that he was last seen by the respondent. This, they have failed to do.
“This application fails and it is hereby dismissed. Be ready for your case”, Justice Nyako said.
Shortly after the court’s ruling, Ejiofor urged the court to guide parties on what next steps would be taken.
Justice Nyako said: “As far as I am concerned, the applicant is on bail. Was he not released on bail based on an undertaking by sureties?
“The sureties guaranteed to produce the applicant in court for his trial, so three of them should produce him. They made an undertaking and deposed to the fact that they will produce him to stand trial.
“If there is any reason they cannot produce him, they should tell me on that date,” Justice Nyako said.
The IPOB leader is facing a five-count treasonable felony charge the Federal Government preferred against him and four other pro-Biafra agitators, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawuisi and Bright Chimezie.
-
Proscription: Court’s judgment wicked, reckless – IPOB
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on Friday described judgement of the federal High Court, Abuja, which upheld its proscription as wicked and reckless.
The Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice, Abdul Kafarati, on Thursday upheld IPOB’s proscription and classification as a terror group.
IPOB, in a statement issued by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Mr. Emma Powerful, in Awka, Anambra State, condemned the court’s judgement.
Powerful said IPOB was a peaceful and legal organisation registered in over 88 countries across the world.
He said: “The upholding of this obnoxious order proscribing the activities of IPOB, when everybody knows that the organisation is peaceful and has not killed an ant, talk less of taking a human life is nothing short of judicial impunity, recklessness and raw wickedness.
“Simply put, a judge cannot be ignorant of the law and at the same time lacking in conscience.
“What Abdul-Kafarati has displayed, by upholding his originally flawed judgement is raw wickedness.
“He failed to address all the issues before him but rather chose to be selective.
“The simple question which ordinary people have been asking all along is this; what activity or aspect of IPOB operations can be regarded as constituting a terrorist act?
“Can Abdul-Kafarati, the DSS or Attorney General’s office name one verifiable incident of breach of peace, murder, arson or rape- usually associated with their fellow Fulani herdsmen- that IPOB has ever been associated with?
-
Court refuses to reverse IPOB’s proscription
A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected an application filed by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), challenging its proscription.
Justice Adamu Kafarati, in a ruling on an application by the group, held that the proscription order made ex-parte on September 20 last year was valid.
Justice Kafarati held that IPOB’s application, seeking the vacation of the proscription order was unmeritorious and deserved to be dismissed.
The judge awarded N500,000 cost against IPOB.
The group’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, thanked the judge for his ruling, but said he would appeal the decision.
-
IPOB warn against Benue recurrence in Abia
Indigenous People of Biafra ( IPOB ) has called Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia State to take decisive action against the rampaging Fulani herdsmen before they wreak any havoc in the state.
They also called on Ikpeazu to ensure that what happened in Benue State last week in which 73 people were massacred by the Fulani herdsmen do not occur in Abia.
The group was reacting to reports of palpable fear and tension at Isiadu Ibeku community in Umuahia North local government following threats by armed Fulani herdsmen to invade the community over alleged refusal of people of the area to allow them to graze their cattle on their farmland.
Recall that Gov Ikpeazu said last week that his administration would not cede any portion of land in the state to the Fulani herdsmen for cattle colony as Abia was shortage of land and had not enough for its teeming farmers.
In a telephone conversation, the younger brother of the leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, Prince Emmanuel Kanu said it was not enough for Ikpeazu to say his administration would not cede any portion of land of the state to the herders, but should move a step further to curtail their activities in the state.
“On Tuesday, the Fulani herdsmen threatened to attack Isiadu Ibeku community in Umuahia North because the villagers refused the herders to graze their cattle on their farm crops and the people have fled their community and are now living in fear. This is why I think it is not enough for Ikpeazu to say he will not cede any portion of land as cattle colony to the Fulani herdsmen, he should do something in concrete terms to ensure that the rampaging herdsmen do not repeat what happened in Benue, in Abia State.”
Kanu said any attempt to attack any community in Abia State by the Fulani herdsmen should be resisted, stressing that it was to checkmate the activities of the herdsmen that made IPOB form the vigilante group which the South East governors and their northern collaborators saw with a different lens and had to proscribe IPOB.
“Now that these governors in order to please their Northern lords have through the ‘Operation Python Dance’ killed Nnamdi Kanu and proscribed IPOB, they should in the same manner rise to the occasion of the security challenge posed by the Fulani herdsmen.”
Kanu berated the South East governors for not seeing the reality on ground when they proscribed IPOB which was a non violent organization, adding that they should as well advise the Federal Government to proscribe the Miyetti Allah which he said has cause mayhem across the country.
-
Proscription of IPOB not enough- Yerima
The controversial leader of the coalition of Arewa Youths Forum, Alhaji Yerima Shettima has called for more stringent measures against the leader and members of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra ( IPOB ).Yerima who blamed the notoriety of IPOB for the quit notice earlier served the Igbo residing in the North, insisted that the prescription of IPOB by the Federal Government was not enough to serve as a deterrent to other groups threatening the peace and unity of the country.“The Government should take more decisive action against Kanu and his dissident group to discourage any group from taking laws into their hands”.He explained that the action of the Arewa Forum was largely misunderstood by majority of Nigerians who thought it was a plot to unleash mayhem on the Igbo in the North, adding that it was a retaliation to the continued insult and denigration of the North and other parts of Nigeria by the IPOB leader.According to Yerima who was in Owerri for the 6th Memorial of Odimegwu Ojukwu’s death, “we are not against any group agitating for self determination but it should be in line with the provisions of the constitution of the country. You cannot run a parallel country within a country.”” We have been working with the leader of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), Chief Ralph Uwazuruike and we have been going on well without friction until two years ago when Kanu came out with IPOB and started insulting everybody and referring to the Northerners as animals, that was why we decided to make it easier for him to go because we were thinking that he was speaking on behalf of the Igbo”.He however said that the Arewa group rescinded the quit notice after the intervention of prominent Northern and Igbo leaders, including former and serving governors.“We withdrew the quit notice and toured the 19 Northern States calming frayed nerves and no one soul was hurt, despite the fact that IPOB killed some Northerners.“We are also engaging other groups on how best to come together and build our nation. The issue of marginalization which the separatist groups have hinged there agitations is not restricted to any zone, we in the North are even more marginalized. Go to the remote parts of the North and see poverty but we have continued to believe and work for a one and indivisible Nigeria”.