How FG prosecutor suffered setback in his evidence against Kanu in court

The Federal High court has paused the prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu and has also announced that all documents needed or to be used for the trial of Nnamdi Kalu must be presented to the defence prior to the court’s sitting.

This decision was reached following the drama that took place during the courts hearing of the Nnamdi Kanu on Tuesday 6th May.

During the court’s session on Tuesday, the judge presiding over Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case notified the defence team of the existence of a letter he received which claimed that one Charles Udeh was Kanu’s lawyer. Kanu’s defense attorney announced that his team wasn’t aware of such development. Kanu concurred with this assertion and stated that Chief Agabi was still his legal adviser.

Also, at the same sitting, the case of Favour Kanu, a relative of the defendant was ordered by the court to be absent for three consecutive sittings. It was her punishment for videoing the court sessions and sharing it on the internet. In her defence, Favour noted that she had assumed that the court sitting was over and had stopped recording immediately she was warned. Speaking up on her behalf, Kanu pleaded for the ban to be lifted.

Additionally, the hearing continued with the questioning of the first witness from the prosecuting side. Upon examination, the witness tagged AAA claimed not to be in the know that all of Kanu’s terrorism charges had been cancelled by the court. The witness was not also aware of the current charges levelled against Nnamdi Kanu. He also added that Kanu’s activities led to cries for secession in the Eastern part of the country. A second witness was cross-examined and the witness who was tagged BBB disclosed he was given the task of probing Kanu by the country’s attorney General.

Moreso, the second witness revealed Kanu was the operator of the controversial Radio Biafra and that he also formed the Eastern Security Network. The prosecution, on the other hand, sought to be allowed to tender a letter that would allow the witness’s investigation to be tendered as evidence. Chief Agabi refused, asserting that the documents weren’t presented to the defence team prior to the sitting.

These new developments led to delay in the prosecution of the case. To prevent future occurrence, the court declared that all documents related to the case or required for the hearings must be presented prior to the day of the hearing. Any documents that do not meet up to that would not be entered during the hearing. With this statement the presiding judge adjourned the case to the 7th of May.