Court Adjourns Indefinitely Over Kanu’s Absence
*FG: He Refused To Appear For Re-Arraignment
THE trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has been stalled, as the court on Monday, November 24, adjourned indefinitely following his non-appearance.
The Federal Government explained that Kanu alleged refused to present himself before the Federal High Court in Abuja for his planned re-arraignment.
Kanu, currently in the custody of the Department of State Service (DSS), is facing an amended seven-count terrorism charge.
A team of government prosecutors, led by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mr. M.B. Abubakar, told Justice Binta Nyako that Kanu declined to be brought before the court for trial.
The Judge had, after the case was called, enquired about the defendant, to which Abubakar replied: “My lord, I understand that the defendant declined to come to court today.
“As at last week, the defendant was intimated of this sitting and he did not object. However, when I called the office this morning, I was informed that the defendant woke up and declined to come to court.
“All entreaties and pleas were made, but he refused to come to court.”
But Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Kanu’s Lead Counsel, told the court that the allegation was strange to him, noting: “My lord, this is totally strange to me because this is a person that has never hidden his intention to always be in court. In fact, even in processes we filed at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the defendant said he would want to be present in court for hearing of all the matters.”
He further notified the trial Judge about the judgment of the Court of Appeal that quashed the 15-count charge preferred against his client by the Federal Government and his discharge of all the allegations, contending that since the Federal Government has gone to the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment, and his client is also challenging the order that stayed the execution of the verdict, it was better for the matter to be adjourned indefinitely.
Besides, he told the court that his client was not served with the amended charge, stating: “We have not even been served with this charge; we only read about it on the social media.
“It was this morning that we discovered that it has been listed on the cause list and I thought that my learned friend will stand up and say that in view of the subsisting Appeal Court judgment, that he is withdrawing it.
“We are surprised, because this is an abuse of court process.”
Abubakar said he was not opposed to an adjournment to enable the Supreme Court to determine the appeals pending before it.
Consequently, Justice Nyako adjourned the case indefinitely.
