The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Thursday, ordered that the scheduled judgement in the alleged terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu be delivered in his absence, citing the violent nature of the IPOB lynchpin.

Justice James Omotosho, who gave the order, said this was in line with Section Section 266(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

The judge also said that contrary to Mr Kanu’s motion for stay, Section 306 of ACJA, 2015, provides that an application for stay of proceedings in a criminal trial will not be entertained. The judge, who cited a previous case to back his decision, said, “The essence of the provision is to prevent inordinate delay of filing appeals while trial is going on.”

The judge, who observed the IPOB leader’s misconduct in the courtroom, said institutions must be respected.

“Because of the defendant’s aggressiveness and violent nature, I make an order that the judgment and other proceedings proceed in his absence,” the judge declared.

According to him, the presence of a defendant throughout a trial is a constitutional right and it is in Section 36.

“Also, this temple is a temple of God because God established it for justice and the sanctity of the temple must be maintained. The unruly behaviour of the defendant is not new and we have seen instances where the defendant beat his counsel to keep quiet while he is talking and challenging security personnel. It is not new.

“Institutions must be respected and we must act according to rules and law. Nobody is above the law. If we allow anybody to act anyway, the sanctity of the court will not be there. As I said earlier, the right to be present in a trial is a constitutional right.

“Even the fundamental right is not absolute. Once you have been given an opportunity and you failed to use it, such a person cannot say his right has been breached. The defendant has done this severally and I say, this is the time to put a stop to it,” he said.

The order followed an application by counsel to the federal government, Adegboyega Awomolo, that the court should invoke Section 266(1)(a) of ACJA, 2015, to allow the proceedings continue in Kanu’s absence.

Mr Kanu had insisted that the judgment would not be delivered in his trial until he was allowed to file his final written address in his defence. He stated this after the judge decided to go ahead with the judgment.

Mr Kanu, who appeared for himself, argued that a motion for stay of proceedings had been filed before the Court of Appeal and that the trial cannot proceed until the hearing and determination of the motion. He further argued that count seven of the charge he is being tried had no basis in law, hence, the court lacked the jurisdiction to have tried him.

He said the Supreme Court had declared the law under which count seven was filed, as a repealed law, hence, the entire counts seven of the charge were in nullity. Besides, he argued that the court ought to allow him file his final written address in line with the law, having opened his defence based on the evidence of the prosecution and the charge which is hinged on a repealed law.

The IPOB leader therefore stood his ground, arguing that the delivery of the judgment would not be in the interest of justice.

“My lord, my application to file a final written address must be granted and I insist. It is my case and let me finish,” Mr Kanu told the SSS operatives who were trying to take him out of the courtroom. “I am entitled to final written address. I need to file my final written address. It is in the constitution.”

Mr Kanu added, “My lord, you are biased. This is not law. Show me where it is written in the law that I can waive my right to final written address.”

“You have your right to appeal,” the judge responded.

“Can you take him out please?” the judge told the security operatives.

“Is that why you brought the cameras? You did not bring them (cameramen) before, you brought them today,” Mr Kanu retorted.

“Please , please listen to the judge,” an SSS officer appealed to the IPOB leader.

“The judge must listen to me. What you are doing is not law,” said Mr Kanu. “You cannot show me because you do not know the law. Which law says you can try me on unwritten law? Which law gave you that right?”

The judge has begun delivering the judgment.

(NAN)