Justice John Tsoho of the federal high court, Abuja, has ruled against
the application of the federal government to mask its witnesses in the
trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)
and director of Radio Biafra.
Tsoho held that masking the witnesses would shield their demeanour from the court.
“There is no gain saying that demeanour of witnesses is very crucial in a trial,” he said.
He
also held that sufficient particulars had not been provided by the
prosecution to show that the witnesses were being threatened.
Tsoho
stated that the Department of State Services (DSS) had already
disclosed the names of its witnesses and addresses, indicating that they
reside in Lagos, Enugu and Port Harcourt, away from the locality of
Kanu.
“It is not correct therefore to assert that many of the witnesses come from the accused persons location,” he said.
However, he ruled that names and addresses of the witnesses would not be made public during the trial.
He thereafter adjourn the case to March 7 and 11 for trial.
Earlier
on Friday, Kanu had opposed the application of the federal government
to protect the identities of witnesses in his trial, describing them as
masquerades.
As the hearing of the application began, David
Kaswe, counsel to the Department of State Services (DSS), the
prosecution, informed Justice John Tsoho of the federal high court,
Abuja, that there was a possibility for witnesses to refuse testifying
against Kanu, without protection.
The prosecution emphasised
that it was important that witnesses be protected in the trial,
explaining that the crux of the application was to seek the protection
of witnesses, and not to cause a secret trial.
But Chuks Muoma
(SAN), counsel to Kanu, argued that what the prosecution was asking for
was a secret trial, and prayed the court to draw a distinction between a
closed trial and protection of witnesses.
He added that the application implied that masked individuals would be testifying before the court.
However,
the prosecution countered his argument, saying that most of the
witnesses were civilians who reside in the location of the accused
person, and as such vulnerable to influence.”
We also ask that these press men will not make public identities and residential locations of these witnesses,” he said.
But
Muoma, citing section 364 of the 1999 constitution (as amended), said
that there was no provision for “masquerades” to testify as witnesses in
a case as such as that of Kanu.
He explained that protection of
witnesses could only be applied to terrorism cases, and not to that of
his client, who is facing charges of treasonable felony.”
An
accused person under our jurisprudence must be confronted with his
accusers eyeball to eyeball,” he said. ”My lord, it is compatible and
common sense with jurisprudence that you cannot accuse someone in the
streets in public and try him in the bedroom.”
No comments:
Post a Comment