Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed February 26 to commence hearing on the case of detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, which was remitted to the lower court by the Supreme Court.
This was made known on Thursday by Kanu’s special counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor.
The Supreme Court had in December 2023 nullified the judgment of the Court of Appeal that ordered Kanu’s release and remitted the case to the Federal High Court to continue the trial of the IPOB leader.
The Nigerian government had challenged the verdict of the Appeal Court which dismissed the charges against Kanu in October 2022 and quashed the terrorism charges against him.
The Supreme Court, however, held that the Nigerian government acted recklessly and unlawfully by renditioning Kanu from Kenya.
But it added that such an unlawful act would not strip any court of its power to proceed with the trial.
The court in the adjournment notice sent to the parties in the case said that “If either party desires to postpone the hearing he must apply to the Court as soon as possible for that purpose; and if the application is based on any matter of fact, he must be prepared to give proof of those facts.”
The notice further stated that “The parties are warned that at the hearing they are required to bring forward all the evidence by witnesses or by documents which each of them desires to rely on in support of his own case and in contradiction of that of his opponent.
“The proof will be required at the hearing, and not on a subsequent day and parties failing to bring their evidence forward at the proper time may find themselves absolutely precluded from adducing it at all, or at best only allowed to do so on payment of substantial costs to the other side, and on such other terms as the Court thinks fir to impose.”
The Court also said that “Parties desirous to enforce the attendance of witnesses should apply at once to the Court to issue one or more summons for the attendance of the witnesses required.
“It is indispensable that the application should be made so as to allow time for reasonable notice to the witnesses required.
“If the witness is required to bring books or papers, they must be particularised in the summons sufficiently to enable him to understand what is meant.
“Any party summoning a witness through the Court, thereby becomes liable to pay such witness a reasonable sum of money to be fixed by the Court for his expense and loss of time.
“The Court may refuse to enforce the attendance of a witness unless such sum has been fixed and deposited in the Court.
“If either party desires to use in evidence the hearing any book or document in the possession or power of the other party, he must give the other party reasonable notice in writing to produce it at the hearing, failing which he will not be allowed to give any secondary evidence of its contents.”
(SR)
