By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA – Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, on Tuesday, queried the competence of the 11-count treason charge the Federal Government entered against him and three other pro-Biafra agitators.

Kanu and his co-defendants- Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, contended that there was nothing in the proof of evidence to support the treason charge against them.

Kanu in Court

They urged trial Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja to quash all the charges against them.

The defendants made the application on a day FG was to open its case against them by producing witnesses to testify before the court.

Besides, Kanu and his co-accused persons further sought leave of the trial court to appeal against the December 1, 2016, ruling that denied them bail.

Sequel to the application, Justice Nyako deferred trial of the defendants till Thursday to enable FG to file its response.

Earlier, Justice Nyako ordered security operatives to always grant the defendants access to their lawyers.

The order followed complaint by counsel to the defendants led by Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, that security operatives at Kuje prison often block them from having access to their clients.

Ejiofor further alleged that some persons that went to visit Kanu sometime last year were arrested and killed by security operatives.

Government lawyer, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran refuted the allegation which he said was just being brought to his attention for the first time.

Meanwhile, scores of Kanu’s supporters stormed the court premises yesterday chanting pro-Biafra songs, with most of them dressed in jewish apparels.

It will be recalled that Kanu had on December 12, threatened that he would in the course of the trial, expose secrets he said would sink Nigeria.

Charges against the defendants border on reasonable felony and their alleged involvement in acts of terrorism.

The defendants had earlier alleged plot by the Federal Government to import foreigners to testify against them.


Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.