DSS Operative’s Alleged Murder: Court Warns Defence Against Delaying Trial of Four Suspects

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday warned the defence lawyers against delay in the trial of four suspected murderers of Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh, an officer of the Department of State Services (DSS).

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the warming after two lawyers, Kelvin Ekwe and Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, who appeared for the defendants, sought an application for adjournment.

The defendants are Michael Okafor, a.k.a Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa a.k.a Ability.

They were arraigned before Justice Abdulmalik on Sept. 28 on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and kidnapping.

The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and were involved in the abduction of Owoh, while he was travelling from Port Harcourt in Rivers to Awka in Anambra.

They were further accused of taking the operative hostage and killing him.

The suspects were also accused of belonging to the proscribed IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), as well as involvement in activities allegedly linked to terrorism.

In addition, the prosecution alleged that the suspects were involved in the unlawful possession of firearms, including an AK-47 rifle, and pump-action gun, in connection with the alleged offences.

The charges followed investigations into the circumstances surrounding the abduction and killing of the officer and the alleged activities of the defendants.

The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts and the judge adjourned for trial.

When the case was called on Wednesday, Munirat Oladunjoye, who represented the prosecution, informed the court that the matter was fixed for trial following the defendants’ denial of the allegations.

She told the court that the prosecution applied to shield the identity of their witnesses pursuant to Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

Oladunjoye, therefore, prayed the court for an order granting the permission to mask their witnesses, and conceal their names.

But lawyer to the 1st and 2nd defendants, Kelvin Ekwe, disagreed with Oladunjoye’s oral application.

He argued that such application was uncalled for.

Ekwe submitted that there is no evidence that if the witnesses are not masked, it will prejudice the prosecution’s case.

Besides, he argued, the application should be formally filed for them to respond appropriately and to guard against ambush.

Justice Abdulmalik then asked Ekwe to cite any law to back his argument that the prosecution must file a formal application to make such request.

Responding, the lawyer said he relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

Oladunjoye also countered Ekwe’s submission.

In a short ruling, the judge agreed with the DSS lawyer’s submission.

Justice Abdulmalik held that in the light that the case being a terrorism matter, it would not serve the interest of justice to expose the identity of the witnesses in the case.

The judge, who directed the trial to commence and the witness to be code-named as “AB”, ordered that anyone who runs foul of Section 232(5) of ACJA will be liable to one year jail term.

However , Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, counsel to the 3rd and 4th defendants, informed the court that he was only coming into the matter for the first and and that he would need more time to study the case file.

Ekwe also told the court that he was just served with the video evidence by the prosecution, insisting that he was not ready to go on with the trial.

The prosecution lawyer responded that though Ekwe was just being served with the video evidence, the video clip would not be used in the day’s trial.

She prayed the court to allow the matter to proceed.

Besides, Oladunjoye argued that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 caused an adjournent.

Dissatisfied, Ekwe and Uwadiegwu stood up simultaneously to address the court on why the matter must be adjourned. This prompted the judge to caution them against unruly behaviour in her court.

“I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict.

“So, when I run my court, there should be 99.9 per cent compliant according to international best practice,” she said.

Justice Abdulmalik said she wouldn’t have listed the case for hearing because there were many pre-election cases in the docket of the court.

She added that she had at least nine judgments to write in respect of pre-election matters which must be delivered before Nov. 9.

The judge, however, said that she saw the case as very crucial and which should be determined expeditiously.

Having listened to the parties, Justice Abdulmalik agreed to give a short adjournment.

She, however, warned against any act that could delay the trial.

The judge consequently adjourned the matter until Oct. 28 at the instance of the two defence lawyers.