News Investigators/ A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, discharged and acquitted no fewer than 50 persons alleged to be members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) of allegations bordering on terrorism.
Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the Nigerian Police Force failed, in its entirety, to established a prima facie case against the 50 defendants, including four women.
Justice Omotosho, who upheld the no-case submission of the defendants, said that the prosecution failed to adduce any credible evidence, linking the defendants to the allegations with which they were charged.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/8/2024, sued the 50 defendants.
They were alleged to have assembled themselves inside 911 truck with Reg No. XA-139 BDN, and engaging themselves in a meeting all about, and in connection with an act of terrorism.
They were alleged to have in their custody 48 Black Caps, 25 Red Caps, 6 Orange Colour Caps, and all were designed in IPOB emblem with various charms, otherwise known as “juju.”
The police further alleged that their “gathering was for the purpose of promoting illegality in other to terrorise the people of Anambra.”
The police said the offence is contrary and punishable under Section 12 of Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, among other counts.
The police called four witnesses to establish their case after which the team of defendants’ lawyers, led by Ifeanyi Ejiofor, opted for a no-submission case.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho said that Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 makes provision for what the court should look out for in upholding or dismissing a no+case submission.
These, he said, are whether the essential element of the offence has been proved, whether there is evidence linking the defendants with the commission of the offence with which they are charged.
Others he said are whether on the face of the record, the evidence of the prosecution has been so discredited and rendered unreliable by cross examination that it would be unsafe to convict on such evidence,” he said, among others.
According to the judge, at this stage, what the court concerns itself with is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie against the defendant such that the defendant will have to enter his defence.
Ruling on count one, he said: “From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is nothing to show that the defendants are even members of IPOB.
“In fact, the only evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses is that the defendants were arrested together in a truck.
“That upon being asked where they were heading to, responded that they were going for a burial but could not name the deceased or the person who invited them.
“This cannot be sufficient reason to suspect the defendants of engaging in terrorist activities.
“The witnesses did not show that the defendants were heading for a meeting of IPOB neither was there evidence of intelligence that the defendants are terrorists.
“The prosecution witnesses even stated that they were engaged in gun duel when they were taking the defendants to the police station but it was not the defendants who shot at them.
“That during the gun battle some of the defendants jumped out of the truck and ran into the bush.
“I think it is reasonable to say that every person caught in a cross fire will likely find a way of escaping due to the need to protect his life.
“The defendants who jumped out of the truck have not committed any offence by jumping out of the truck to save their lives.”
The judge held that the evidence before the court showed that the defendants were peaceful throughout their arrest.
“This court then wonders how a terrorist would be peaceful,” he said, citing Section 46 of the Act.
He said the court observed that the exhibits recovered from the defendants which include calabash, cowries, red cloth and figurine did not conclusively proved that the defendants used them for terrorist activities.
“It is a well-known fact that calabashes are used for trade by barter (during pre-colonial era), to serve food and even as items of traditional worship.
“Also I remember that when I was growing up in Lagos in those days, some parents were fond of wearing cowries on their children’s waist.
“Does this then mean that those parents were members of IPOB or a terrorist organisation?
“The answer is a resounding no. Cowries were once used as means of exchange in pre-colonial Nigeria and this court is aware that it is still being used by some people for traditional worship.
“As far as this court is concerned, cowries are not weapons to cause harm or mass fear or hysteria in the populace which is common to terrorist activities.
“Furthermore, the efficacy of the juju allegedly recovered from the defendants was not demonstrated before the court to show that it was a weapon.
“Prosecution witness also stated that it was fearful, without proving its power if any.
“All these point to the fact that the defendants did not participate in any terrorist activity or promote any terrorist activity.
“None of the recovered exhibits bear the insignia of IPOB, thus, they could not have been accused of promoting the activities of a proscribed group.
“The defendants were not caught engaging in terrorist activity but were only found in a truck.
“The prosecution has failed woefully in linking the defendants to the charge.
“The prosecution has also failed to prove any of the ingredients of the offence against the defendants.
“This is even more so as the statements of the defendants which may have been helpful to the case of the prosecution were rejected by the court.
On count three which bordered on conspiracy, Justice Omotosho held that the prosecution failed to show that the defendants were in the 911 truck on the Dec. 1, 2023 with a common intention to commit an illegal act.
“Neither has the prosecution proved that the illegal act committed was as a result of the meeting of minds of the defendants,” he said.
According to him, this court struggles to see how the defendants conspired to commit a terrorist act.
“The evidence led by the prosecution is woefully short of what is required to establish this count.
“As it stands, there is nothing before the court to warrant the calling on the defendants to put in their defence as no prima facie case has been proved by the prosecution,” he stated.
The judge said the charge before the court “appeared to be a trumped up charge against the defendants, including old men, women, youths and middle aged persons who were unfortunate to be arrested together in a truck at night.”
He said the prosecution had failed in its one duty of making out a prima facie case against the defendants.
“The charge against the defendants are quite serious as they carry very stiff imprisonment terms.
“Yet the prosecution without much substantial ground, presented a paper-thin case which proves almost nothing against the defendants.
“The evidence of shooting, attack against the police in the course of arresting the defendant was shown under cross examination to have been perpetrated by other persons apart from the defendants.
“There is therefore not enough or any semblance of a prima facie case which would make the defendants put in their defence.
“The case presented by the prosecution lacks enough substance and accordingly the defendants cannot be held liable.
“In final analysis, the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case against the defendants.
“Consequently, the no-case submissions of the defendants are hereby upheld and they are hereby discharged and acquitted of the three counts charge,” he declared.
NAN
