Published On: Mon, Mar 20th, 2017




Barrister Adoga still speaking for the second defendant asked the court to grant conditions of bail and a surety for such bail and then whenever he has court trial, he will simply be produced in court.

He stated the law that his rights are been pressed down when a defendant who has pleaded not guilty is been detained.

He further brought to the notice of the court, a counter affidavit filed on 15th of March, to the motion filed against his client by the FG.
He stated that the counter affidavit is not challenging the investigation of his client but that his rights must be protected.

He maintained that it is outrageous for his client to continue to be in detention when he is been severely maltreated in prison custody.

He said that the court should distance itself from the false application filed against his client.

Tendering his argument, lawyer to the 3rd defendant, Barrister I.E Eseme, stated that he wishes to adopt the application filed on 2nd day of March, 2017, for the charges against his client.

He stated that his client was charged on two-count charges bordering on conspiracy to commit treason and illegal possession of firearms, adding that those charges are not meritorious and that his client cannot be denied bail when there’s no evidence before the court pointing to that. He said that since his client has never been convicted on any crime, the Prosecution has no right to oppose his bail.

He further said that if his client is been given temporal freedom, he’ll still be able to attend his business, daily routine and also stand for his trial when necessary.

He maintained that his client did not commit any offence that will warrant his bail denial.

In his submission, lawyer to the fourth defendant, Barrister Maxwell Okpara, pointed out a file application dated 2nd March, 2017, as his basis of argument.

He said he is relying on nine solid grounds in nine paragraphs and also in support of the comprehensive written address where sole issues for determination whether his client should be granted bail or not.

He said that the Prosecution filed a counter affidavit in opposition to their application and that they’ve filed an application on point of law.

He stated that it is indeed laughable for someone to sit at the Ministry of Justice to say that the defendants will jump bail if granted bail.

He further challenged the Prosecution to bring forward the proof of evidence against his client, but until then, the court should grant the 3rd defendant bail. He challenged the FG to come forward to prove the charges lodged against his defendants.

He asked the judge to release the defendants on bail to pave way for a sound hearing on the filed charges.

Responding, The Prosecution to the FG, SN Labaran, said he observed that the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants brought their applications on grounds not obtainable on law. He said that he has reasoned through all the court processes, and there’s no evidence that will warrant the honourable court to grant their applications but rather they(defendants), are deliberately delaying their trial, asking the court to rather than grant them bail, it should give an accelerated hearing to the case.

Ejiofor who countered this position, posited that the standing order of the court of law by Justice Adeniyi Ademola has neither been obeyed nor vacated.

Justice Nyako who interrupted him said he should stop making reference to such instances made by Justice Ademola.

Ejiofor who countered this position, posited that the standing order of the court of law by Justice Adeniyi Ademola has neither been obeyed nor vacated.

Justice Nyako who sharply interrupted him said he should stop making reference to such instances made by Justice Ademola.

Justice Nyako said that the court’s previous ruling is still pending and has not been changed.

She said, “as long as they’re security operatives, they’ll still testify behind the screen.

“Even if you continue to shout till thy kingdom come, the order for witnesses to testify behind the screen still stands and I cannot change it.

You(Ejiofor), the defendants, the defense counsels will see them but other people outside these people will not see them.

“You’re talking when am talking and that’s disrespectful.

“We need to protect the security of the witnesses not because of this case but for future references.

“Their names are already in your list, so what’s the big deal about that.

“If you want to see their body language or observe their demeanor to see if they are lying, then they have to wear mask.

“So you have to choose, it’s either they wear masks or they testify behind the scenes.

She further asked Ejiofor if he read Sharia law in school and he answered that he didn’t go that side. She then said that her ruling is covered on that law and that the witnesses either appears in masks or behind the scenes.

She told them that he has just truncated tomorrow’s trial by the new application he filed and then asked him to decide if the court will adopt the application or not.

She said that if the court will determine the application, then it will continue some other times and not tomorrow.

Biafrans at this point are seen angry at Binta’s change of position. More update coming from BIAFRA WRITERS.

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse


Share This

About the Author

- Mr. Solomon is a seasoned journalist/writer/ social & political activist/freelancer blogger wish to get in touch with him? then write to- (