Court Throws Out FG’s Evidence in Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Over Legal Breach

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled against the Federal Government in the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), rejecting key evidence obtained during his interrogation by the Department of State Services (DSS).

Justice James Omotosho, delivering the ruling on Thursday, upheld the argument of Kanu’s legal team that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated when his statements were taken in the absence of legal counsel. This, the court said, rendered the evidence inadmissible.

Kanu’s lead counsel, Paul Erokoro, SAN, had argued that the Supreme Court had consistently maintained that the presence of a lawyer is mandatory during the taking of a suspect's confessional statement. The prosecution, represented by Suraj Saida, SAN, contended otherwise, citing Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, which states such presence “may” be required.

However, Justice Omotosho held that constitutional protections supersede procedural technicalities. "Though the ACJA uses the word 'may,' the Supreme Court has clarified this in multiple rulings—legal representation during statement-taking is a constitutional safeguard, not a luxury," the judge ruled.

He noted that while video evidence presented showed Kanu appearing calm during his interrogation, the fact that he repeatedly stated in the footage that his lawyers were not present was a critical omission by the prosecution.

According to the judge, such infractions, especially in a high-profile and sensitive case, cannot be overlooked. “In criminal trials, especially when confessional statements are key, the presence of legal counsel is not optional—it is a fundamental right,” Omotosho stated.

Consequently, the court rejected and expunged from its records all statements made by Kanu in October and November 2015, as well as the accompanying video recordings which were earlier admitted as Exhibits PWQ and PWR.

The decision followed a trial-within-a-trial, which was ordered on Wednesday to determine whether the statements were made voluntarily. Kanu had alleged that he was interrogated under duress, denied access to his lawyer, and subjected to threats by DSS personnel. He claimed that his interviews were edited and conducted in solitary confinement, denying him basic health privileges.

The prosecution’s witness, a DSS operative, denied all of Kanu’s allegations. He told the court that Kanu was treated well, even served bottled water, and was never coerced. According to him, Kanu’s statements were voluntary and truthful.

Despite the DSS's denials, Justice Omotosho held that the absence of legal representation during the extraction of the statements was a serious violation of due process. “The law is clear: for a confessional statement to be admissible, it must not only be voluntary but also obtained in accordance with the suspect’s fundamental rights,” he said.

The trial will continue, but without the now-expunged evidence that the Federal Government had hoped to rely on.

Source
Vanguard

Related Posts: