The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Wednesday, adjourned sine die (without a day) to rule on the admissibility of extra-judicial statements made by three terrorism suspects, after hearing final arguments in a trial-within-trial.

The case, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, involves Haruna Abbas, Ibrahim Musa, and Adam Suleiman, who are standing trial for conspiracy, recruitment for terrorist training, surveillance of foreign embassies, and providing support for acts of terrorism.

The trial-within-trial became necessary following objections raised by defence counsel, who argued that the defendants’ extra-judicial statements were not made voluntarily.

At Wednesday’s hearing, prosecution counsel, Bello Abu, told the court that during the trial-within-trial, the first defendant, Abbas, admitted under cross-examination that his allegation of coercion in obtaining the statement was false.

Mr Abu also noted that while the court had directed all parties to file written addresses, only the prosecution had done so within the stipulated time, with one of the defence counsel yet to file.

Although the matter was previously scheduled for October 8 for the adoption of written addresses, it was brought forward following the prosecution’s application for an accelerated hearing during the court’s vacation.

The request was granted by the chief judge of the Federal High Court. After counsel had closed their arguments on Wednesday, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter sine die to deliver his ruling on the admissibility of the extra-judicial statements.

He stated that all parties would be given one week’s notice through the court registrar.

The case, which dates back to 2014, has experienced repeated delays, having been reassigned to different judges on at least three occasions, requiring the trial to start afresh each time.

Some of the charges against the defendants border on conspiracy to do an act preparatory to an act of terrorism, obtaining Nigerian International Passport and Iranian Visa for the purpose of travelling to Iran for terrorist training, thereby offending Section 17 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011, as amended by Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013.

Others are carrying out an act in furtherance of an act of terrorism by recruiting and transporting young men like the 2nd and 3rd defendants in this case to Iran for terrorist training contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended by Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013 and punishable under Section 33(1)(a) of the same act.

Others are rendering support to an act of terrorism by agreeing to send persons for terrorist training in Iran, contrary to Section 4(1)(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended by Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.

(NAN)