In a ruling on Thursday, the Federal High Court in Abuja, rejected evidence that the federal government wanted to use against Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Judge James Omotosho agreed with Kanu’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro, who argued that the law requires a lawyer to be present when a suspect gives a statement.
Although, a 2015 law suggested that having a lawyer is not always required, the judge noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that a lawyer’s presence during such statements is mandatory.
After both sides presented their arguments, Justice Omotosho decided that the statements made by Kanu were not admissible as evidence.
He explained that the prosecution had the responsibility to prove its case during a special hearing (known as a trial-within-trial).
The judge looked at video evidence and determined that Kanu appeared relaxed during the interviews conducted by the Department of State Services (DSS).
However, Kanu repeatedly stated in the video that he had been interviewed without his lawyer being present.
The judge therefore emphasized that the law mandates a lawyer’s presence when a suspect makes confessions, protecting the rights of such a suspect.
Read also:
- Nnamdi Kanu’s trial: Nigerian Govt witness not on list of witnesses – IPOB
- Court dismisses Nnamdi Kanu’s N50 billion lawsuit against FG
- FG re-arraigned Nnamdi Kanu on revised terrorism charge
Due to the absence of Kanu’s lawyer during the recording of these statements, Justice Omotosho ruled that the statements obtained in 2015 were inadmissible.
He went on to remove the video recordings and statements from the court’s records, declaring them invalid.
During the proceedings, Kanu alleged that he was pressured and threatened by DSS officials, claiming he was kept in harsh conditions and prevented from contacting his lawyer.
The witness from the DSS, however, denied these allegations, claiming that Kanu was treated well and that his complaints were false.
In conclusion, the court highlighted the importance of following legal procedures to protect individuals’ rights, especially in serious cases like this one.
