Court Rejects FG’s Evidence Against Nnamdi Kanu Over Absence Of Lawyer During Interrogation
The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected key evidence sought to be tendered by the Federal Government in the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Justice James Omotosho ruled on Thursday that the extra-judicial statements obtained from Kanu in 2015 are inadmissible, citing the absence of his legal counsel during interrogation. The judge upheld the objection raised by Kanu’s counsel, Paul Erokoro, SAN, who argued that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that the presence of a suspect’s lawyer is mandatory during the extraction of confessional statements.
Although the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 uses the term “may” in Section 17(2), which could imply discretion in having a lawyer present, Justice Omotosho emphasized that the Supreme Court has given binding interpretations that make the presence of a lawyer compulsory in such situations.
The ruling followed a trial-within-trial ordered by the court to determine the voluntariness of the statements. The Federal Government’s counsel, Suraj Saida, SAN, and the defence adopted their written addresses before the judge ruled.
Justice Omotosho stated that while video footage showed Kanu appearing relaxed during the Department of State Services (DSS) interviews, he could not ignore Kanu’s repeated claim that he was not allowed access to his lawyers at the time.
The judge highlighted that ensuring legal representation during such interrogations is tied to the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens. He stressed that in a case as serious as this, involving charges with heavy consequences, strict adherence to due process is non-negotiable.
The court found that the statements made by Kanu in October and November 2015 were inadmissible and subsequently expunged them from the record. The accompanying video recordings were also struck out.
The IPOB leader had alleged that he made the statements under duress, claiming he was denied legal access, subjected to threats, and held in solitary confinement. He also said he was pressured to make statements implicating former President Goodluck Jonathan and ex-Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State. He further alleged that the video recordings were edited.
A DSS operative who testified for the prosecution denied the allegations, asserting that Kanu was not coerced and that all complaints were duly addressed. The operative also claimed that Kanu was treated well and even served bottled water during interrogation sessions.
Despite these assertions, the court ruled in favor of the defence, reinforcing the legal requirement for a suspect’s lawyer to be present during questioning. The court marked the affected statements and recordings as rejected and removed them from the case file.
