Key exhibits tendered by the Federal Government at the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra have been thrown away.
Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the exhibits meant to establish the terrorism charges brought against Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu.
The exhibits are 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.
Also rejected by the judge are the video recordings of the statements by Kanu on the ground that they are inadmissible in evidence.
Justice Omotosho rejected the exhibits while delivering ruling on Thursday on the admissibility of the documents following allegations by Kanu that he made parts of the statements under duress.
The ruling followed the trial within trial conducted by the court to ascertain the veracity of Kanu’s allegations that he was coerced, molested and harassed to write what was dictated to him.
In the ruling, Justice Omotosho said that he had listened to both counsel for Kanu and the Federal Government and had gone through the evidence and concluded that the burden of proof of Kanu’s statements is on the prosecution to prove that confession was obtained voluntarily.
He said Kanu did not establish involuntariness in any way during his evidence.
The judge also said that the video showed that the statement was taken in a cordial environment and no sign of coercion was noticed contrary to Kanu’s allegations.
He however held that the court cannot close its eyes to the fact that Kanu was regularly complaining about the absence of his counsel during interrogation, especially when making statements.
According to him, Section 15 of the Administration of Criminal Just Act 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 that the essence of recording the statement in video is to proof that the statement was voluntarily obtained in the presence of a counsel.
He said that security agencies must comply with the provisions of the law by recording a suspect’s statement in the presence of his counsel.
Justice Omotosho also cited Section 32 of the 1999 Constitution which provides that any accused person is entitled to legal representation.
He said, “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.
“I hereby order as follows: The statement of the defendant dated 21-24 October and November 4 2015 are inadmissible in evidence.
“The video recordings of the statement are also declared inadmissible and marked rejected.”
