Court Rejects Statements, Videos Obtained without Kanu’s Lawyers

Alex Enumah in Abuja

A Federal High Court in Abuja, has rejected as exhibits, statements and videos tendered by the federal government in the alleged terrorism trial of Biafra nation agitator, Nnamdi Kanu. 

The statements dated October 21, 24 and November 4, 2015 made by Kanu to operatives of the Department of State Service (DSS) during his interrogation sessions were rejected on the grounds that they were obtained without the presence of Kanu’s lawyers.

Justice James Omotosho declined to accept the documents, while delivering ruling in a trial-within-trial, held to ascertain the veracity of Kanu’s claim that he made the said statements involuntarily.

The DSS had sought to tender the said exhibits on Wednesday to prove their allegations of alleged terrorism and treasonable felony charge against Kanu, but the defendant objected to the admissibility of the said evidence claiming that he had made them under duress.

The Biafra agitator claimed that he was coerced, molested and harassed to write what were dictated to him by officials of the DSS. 

However, the judge in his ruling, disagreed with Kanu that the said statements were made under duress.

According to Justice Omotosho it was obvious from the video shown that the statements were taken in a cordial environment with no sign of coercion noticed.

He, however, held that the court could not close its eyes to the fact that Kanu was regularly complaining about the absence of his counsel during interrogation especially when making statements.

Omotosho stressed that Section 15 of the Administration of Criminal Just Act (ACJA) provides that where a suspect is arrested without a warrant, his statement must be obtained in the presence of his counsel and that where a counsel is not available, in the presence of an officer of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria or a member of the civil society. 

The Judge said the essence of recording the statement in video was to proof that the statement was voluntarily obtained in the presence of a counsel.

The court emphasised the need for security agencies to always comply with the provisions of the law by recording a suspects statement in the presence of his counsel.

Besides, the court cited Section 32 of the 1999 Constitution which provides that any accused person is entitled to legal representation.

“Even though the statement was recorded in video, the fact that the lawyer of the defendant is not available makes the statement inadmissible in evidence.

“This court is empowered to also expunge the video recordings which had been admitted in evidence. Having established that the statement is inadmissible, it holds to law that the video recordings are also not admissible,” he held.