The Federal High Court in Abuja has directed the prosecution in the ongoing trial of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to ensure all relevant documents and materials intended for trial are duly served on the defence team before being tendered in court.
At the resumed hearing on the court took a firm stance on trial procedures following confusion over legal representation and tension surrounding courtroom conduct.
A letter from one Charles Ude, claiming to be Mr Kanu’s lawyer, sparked the court’s concern but lead defence counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN, disassociated the team from Ude’s claim, with Kanu affirming that Agabi remains his official legal representative.
In a bid to maintain order, the presiding judge stressed that only 16 counsel out of the 26 listed would be recognised in court.
The court also addressed a past infarction involving Favour Kanu, a relative of the defendant, who had recorded court proceedings in violation of directives.
The judge revealed she had also posted the content online.
Mr Kanu’s appealed for leniency on her behalf. The judge, however, barred her from attending the next three sittings.
The trial continued with the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness (PW1), identified as AAA.
The witness admitted to being unaware that several terrorism charges against Kanu had been struck out by the court.
He also lacked knowledge of the current status of many of the original 15-count charges.
The second prosecution witness (PW2), identified as BBB, testified that he was assigned by the Attorney General of the Federation to investigate Kanu.
He described the defendant as the operator of Radio Biafra and the founder of the Eastern Security Network.
Attempts by the prosecution to tender a letter authorising the witness’s investigation met stiff resistance from Mr Agabi, who objected on the grounds that the document was not front-loaded.
The prosecution later withdrew the document, and the court granted the withdrawal.
The trial also saw disagreements over the admissibility of video evidence presented by the defence, which Kanu himself opposed.
The court ordered that all materials intended for trial must be served in advance and listed properly, stressing that no document would be admitted unless previously disclosed to the defence.
On a separate issue, the prosecution said it had filed a motion for the release of certain items already tendered as exhibits—specifically, items numbered 1 to 28 and 30 to 39.
The court directed that the motion must be refiled, with each exhibit explicitly identified and properly referenced.
While the prosecution expressed readiness to proceed with trial for three consecutive days as previously planned, Agabi requested a pause to allow for client consultation.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to May 7 for the continuation of trial, specifically for the examination-in-chief of the second witness, BBB.
