ABUJA – The presiding judge at the Federal High Court, Abuja
Justice John Tsoho arrived and climbed the bench at about 10:10 am.
Tsoho proceeded to read out the names of the three accused persons Nnamdi Kanu, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.
S.M Labaran was the first to introduce himself on behalf of the Federal Government, followed by SAN Chuks Muoma appearing for the defendants with his learned legal team.
At this point, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra and Director of Radio Biafra and Biafra Television Nnamdi Kanu just arrived at 10:14 am while his lawyer is still introducing his legal team
SAN Chuks Muoma raised a motion for proceedings which was filed on the 7th day of March 2016.
Muoma told the court that the applicants will rely on the facts contained in the filed application.
He continued by saying that the letter attached to the affidavit is exhibit MD3.
SAN Muoma also told the court that the defendants also rely on all the positions in the said affidavit and said, the two written addresses was in pursuant of this affidavit.
He informed the court that the second written address attached to the application is dated 22nd March 2016.
At this point, the judge intercepted SAN Muoma saying that the time allowed for him to make his presentation has elapsed, but Muoma reminded the judge that he, [Muoma] has within 20 minutes to make his presentation and that he has not exhausted the time.
But the judge adamantly stopped him from proceeding in his presentation.
The Prosecutor in his presentation asked the court to disregard the application submitted by the defendants, describing it as “bias”.
Chuks Muoma rose to react to the Prosecuting counsel’s plea, citing that it’s an adjunct of the right of appeal as stated in section 241(2) of the constitution adding that the law is not hypocritical.
Muoma said his reaction in the court is an act of appeal provided by section 241 sub-section one, of the Constitution.
The law is not hypocritical, it doesn’t do with the right and takes away the right, the learned SAN added.
Chuks Muoma quoted those sections saying that Section 306 is unconstitutional regarding the case of Kanu.
He told the Honourable court that section 306 of the administration of criminal justice act constitution is an aberration to section 214, therefore, its null and void, saying that it’s unconstitutional and therefore, cannot stand.
He further explained section 306, saying that it’s contradictory to that of 214, and saying that it’s not done and that he is standing by it.
At this point, there was a grave silence in the court as it seemed that Chuks Muoma [SAN] has quashed the prosecution’s point of argument.
Barrister Chuks Muoma [SAN] broke the silence only for the judge, Justice John Tsoho, who could not hide his contempt for Kanu adjourned the court session till Tuesday, 26th April 2016.
Biafra Writers crew who were live in the court reporting from Abuja, later interviewed Bar Ifeanyi Ejiofor on the outcome of the court session and to explain further what really happened in the court today.
We will be bringing you the comprehensive report on the court proceedings and the live interview granted by Bar Ifeanyi Ejiofor.