At the resumed trial of the indigenous people of Biafra Nnamdi Kanu, Counsel to the federal government, Adegboyega Awomolo, told the court that the prosecution is ready to call its first witness.
Counsel to Mr Kanu objected to the position of the prosecution, he says the defendant has two applications before the court to move and adopt.
He noted that the application is predicated on the treatment they received from the DSS as counsel to the defendant, as they do not have unfettered access to Nnamdi Kanu whenever they visit him.
He alleged that DSS also plants hidden cameras in the room where they hold their meetings with their clients.
The Presiding Judge, Justice Binta Nyako, held that the court needs to make progress in the case.
She ordered that the applications be adopted and trial should commence
The first application of Mr Kanu is asking the court to reinstate the bail earlier granted to Mr Kanu which was revoked, the second application is praying the court for a non-custodial detention for Mr Kanu in the alternative.
He held that the Supreme Court faulted the revocation of Mr Kanu’s bail as it acknowledged that he did not jump bail but fled for his life.
On the application of alternative detention, Mr Ejimakor submitted that it was in line with the court order to put the application in writing, when he sought to move it orally at the late adjourned date.
House arrest is not new to the court, former NSA Sambo Dansuki was placed on house arrest likewise El Zazakey.
The prosecution prayed the court to refuse the applications of the defendant, on grounds that, the court does not have the jurisdiction to grant the application of the applicant.
When a court has taken a decision, parties are bound by the decision, the only alternative is to appeal.
The defendant did not appeal to his revocation of bail, the trial court can not sit on appeal in its own decision.
The orbital by Justice Emmanuel Agim of the Supreme Court which faulted the revocation of Mr Kanu’s bail was a side comment and does not have any status and is not binding.
The issue of bail was never raised before the Supreme Court, the side comment of Justice Agim can not the relied on
The fact presented by the defendant to create a mountain out of a mould hill, throughout the affidavits they tendered, no single date was made reference to or name of any DSS official mentioned.
The court cannot rely on speculations to condemn a government institution, the defendant cannot create a situation where they are expecting executive treatment.
The defendant is not charged with fraud or money laundering but rather terrorism which is one of the highest crimes in the country, so if the DSS is taken out to ensure the lives and property of Nigerians are protected it should be commended.
The processes being filed by the defendant are scandalous and it is a move to delay proceedings and fair trial.
