Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal Excessive Court docket in Abuja dismissed essential reveals the Federal Authorities introduced to show terrorism expenses in opposition to Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu.
The discarded proof contains Kanu’s statements from October 21, 24, and November 4, 2015, given to operatives of the Division of State Service (DSS) throughout interrogation.
Additionally rejected have been video recordings of those statements, dominated inadmissible by the decide.
Justice Omotosho’s resolution got here on the twenty ninth of Might, 2025, after an in depth ruling on the admissibility of the proof. The decide acted on Kanu’s claims that elements of the statements have been made beneath duress.
A trial inside the trial was held to look at whether or not Kanu’s allegations of coercion, molestation, and harassment throughout the making of the statements have been true.
The decide reviewed arguments from either side and the proof earlier than concluding that the prosecution should show Kanu’s statements got voluntarily.
Kanu, Justice Omotosho famous, didn’t show involuntariness throughout his testimony.
The decide noticed that the video confirmed a relaxed setting throughout the assertion, with no seen indicators of coercion, contradicting Kanu’s claims.
READ ALSO: Kanu’s Trial Twist: IPOB Claims Govt Witness Not on Court docket Record
Nonetheless, the courtroom acknowledged Kanu’s repeated complaints about not having his lawyer current throughout interrogation and statement-taking.
Citing Part 15 of the Administration of Legal Justice Act, Justice Omotosho careworn that statements from suspects arrested with out a warrant have to be recorded within the presence of their counsel or if unavailable, an officer from the Authorized Help Council or a civil society member.
He emphasised that video recordings are supposed to show statements have been made voluntarily and with authorized illustration current.
The decide pointed to Part 32 of the 1999 Structure, which ensures each accused individual the appropriate to authorized illustration.
He dominated, “Although the assertion was recorded in video, the truth that the lawyer of the defendant shouldn’t be obtainable makes the assertion inadmissible in proof.”
Justice Omotosho ordered the expunging of each the statements and the video recordings from the proof, declaring them inadmissible and rejected by the courtroom.
He formally declared: “The assertion of the defendant dated 21-24 October and November 4, 2015 are inadmissible in proof. The video recordings of the assertion are additionally declared inadmissible and marked rejected.”
