DSS IS LYING TO HIGH COURT "KANU'S LAWYER

As stated  by the lawyer
DSS Deceived Abuja Federal High
Court – Kanu’s lawyer
Egechukwu Obetta is lawyer to
Nnamdi Kanu, Director of Radio
Biafra and leader of Indigenous
People of Biafra (IPOB). In this
interview he tells how far the trial
of his client has gone. He equally
exposed how the Department of
State Security (DSS) succeeded in
lying to Federal High Court in Abuja,
thereby obtaining a “Kangaroo” ex-
parte motion against his client.
We just heard that the DSS
secretly obtained a court order to
detain Nnamdi Kanu for 90 days
in order to investigate his case.
Are you aware of this
development? Is it true?
Yes, I am aware. I was the one that
broke the news, because yesterday
in the court the prosecutor served
me a counter affidavit, and in that
counter affidavit was an annexure,
and that annexure was an order of
Federal High Court, which he got
through an ex-parte motion. It was
an ex-parte motion permitting the
DSS to detain Nnamdi Kanu for the
next three months, to enable it to
conclude what they said was an
investigation of terrorism and
terrorism financing. (The DSS
obtained the ex-parte motion from
Alfa Ademola’s court).
So what are your thoughts
concerning the new DSS move?
We have already filed contempt
proceedings against the DSS. We
have already filed it because the fact
remains that we had three court
orders which the DSS refused to
obey. All those orders I got them
personally. They were orders from
the magistrate court, and we got
them earlier before they (DSS) went
to the Federal High Court to get
their order. So the logical reasoning
there is that they went and deceived
the Federal High Court. They didn’t
tell the Federal High Court the truth
concerning the case. They didn’t
bring before the Federal High Court
the fact that there was already a
Court Order already in existence. So
they hid it and got that 90 days
order. So we have already resumed
the process of setting it aside.
Many Biafrans are troubled that
your client was not brought to
court yesterday. Others are even
sad and pained, and I don’t know
what you can say to that?
Anyway it is not just Biafrans alone
that are troubled, Nigerians are
waging tongues as to why Nnamdi
Kanu was not brought to court
yesterday. Maybe because it goes
against the rule of natural justice
and also offends the rule of law as
well, which presupposes that
everybody is equal before the law?
So the reaction of members of IPOB
is also not different from the
reaction of ordinary Nigerians,
because the law is so clear as to
when somebody is being put on
trial. The new Administrative of
Criminal Justice (ACJ) Act of 2015,
stipulates in section 2: 66 that at all
material times an accused person
being tried in court must be present
in court to witness his trial.
Although the law says there are
exceptions. The exceptions could
come in this form: If in a previous
trial, the accused person had
conducted himself in an unruly
manner, then the court can say
“don’t bring him, you can leave him
and let’s go on”. But in Nnamdi’s
case, he has not been to court. He
has just been brought to court only
the day he was granted bail; and he
has not conducted himself in any
manner that could be described as
misconduct. So in that bases, we
brought to the attention of the court
that the court cannot continue with
any trial unless Nnamdi Kanu is
brought to court.
It is a legal matter, it is not a
sentimental matter. It is a condition;
a precedence that a court must
observe. When an accused is being
tried, he (the accused) must be there
to witness his trial. Once it is not
there, and it does not fall under the
two exceptions of ACJ, then court
cannot go on. So when we brought
that to the judge, he said the trial
cannot go on unless he is brought to
court.
Some people are really expressing
fears, afraid that he might even
not be alive right now; that they
have killed him. Well I know that
there is no speculation in law, but
then many of these people are not
lawyers. What can you say to
that?
Well, the truth remains that I was
with Nnamdi Kanu last Wednesday
(November 11) and he was hail and
healthy. Then I also spoke with the
prosecution in court yesterday
(November 18). Remember what we
are doing is legal matter, we are not
quarreling; we are not fighting. So
the prosecution spoke with me
yesterday. We exchanged
pleasantries, and he never gave me
any impression or inkling that
Nnamdi Kanu is dead or sick.
This evening also, (November 19)
just about 20 minutes ago, I also
spoke with the Director of Legal SSS,
that is the head of the prosecution, I
was talking to him about my client
and he gave me all the answers I
needed. He did not give me any idea
that my client, Nnamdi Kanu is
either sick or dead. So, to the extent
of my knowledge, Nnamdi Kanu is
healthy and is bouncing very well.
He is not dead.
What is your greatest challenge
so far in handling this case? Are
you experiencing any challenge
at all?
The challenge I have is that as a
lawyer, what I was taught and what
I have practiced over the years is
that once there is a particular
situation, and you found a solution
that applies to that situation, the
judge will give you your judgment.
The challenge I have now is that I
have applied the law to the situation
at hand, and the judge has given me
three judgments. But executive have
not been able to implement it,
simply because the implementing
agency is the one that is disobeying
the law. We have asked the court to
do something for us, and the court,
in applying the law, gave us
judgment - it made the first order,
the second order, and the third
order. Three orders, and it is
supposed to be implemented by the
DSS, but the DSS has flagrantly
disobeyed these orders. So that is
the only challenge I have. I don’t
have issues with the judiciary
because the judiciary has been
applying the law the way it is. The
problem we have is with the
prosecution that has refused to
apply or obey the law. They have
obeyed the law in breach, contrary
to the rule of law, and then the rule
of natural justice.
We got this information that
there was a disagreement
between you and another lawyer
on who is Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer.
Do you have any comment on
that?
My comment on that is that I was
surprised to see the kind of drama
that played out in court yesterday.
The surprise I got is that the same
lawyer knows that I have been
briefed and he saw the letter that
was given to me by the Deputy
Director of IPOB (Uche Mefor), who
gave me letter on behalf of IPOB
people. In addition to that, and to
cap it up with the confidence they
reposed in me, father of the accused,
His Royal Highness Okwu Kanu,
also used his palace letter-head to
give me appointment, thereby
supporting the retainer-ship that
was given to me by the IPOB. So,
when that colleague came out and
reacted, I did not want to go into it
because I saw it as a professional
affair. I want to assure you that it is
going to be resolved amicably. But
the problem here is that people do
not understand the way this thing is
going. Why I don’t need to quarrel
with any lawyer about this case
because I am doing it Pro Bono –
that is I am giving my legal services
free! So even if we have hundred
lawyers joining us, we do it together
because I am not threatened that
somebody is coming to share the
money I am going to get. I should
not be bothered because I didn’t
charge any legal fee. I am doing it as
a human right activist. I am doing it
in defence of democracy and in
defence of the rule of law. So I want
to get it clear; to let the world to
know that I am doing this job Pro
Bono, so I don’t need to quarrel with
any lawyer because that lawyer is
not coming to do anything that will
affect me. However, I am doing so in
the spirit that anybody that is
coming to work with me, or that
wants to join me, would be a man
that has integrity – somebody who I
can also trust. This is because this
matter is a sensitive matter that if I
bring somebody that I do not trust
and begins to leak things, it will
affect my own integrity. There are
lots of pressures coming from
different interest groups, including
the group that my client comes
from, trying to puncture what we
are doing. So if you bring in
somebody you don’t trust and the
person gets to sale-out, you won’t
know what to do because all of you
will be counted as one of those who
have sabotaged the effort. That is
why I am very careful in doing what
I am doing. I am not against him
because I want to make money,
because I didn’t charge money; I am
doing it free of charge.
We are going to resolve the issue as
professionals. This is not the first
time this kind of issue has arisen. It
has happened in the case of Abiola,
when he was incarcerated in 1993.
GOK Ajayi came and fronted himself
as the man to represent Abiola.
Then FRA Williams, of blessed
memory, also came to say that he
had been briefed by Abiola. Then
the matter was resolved when
Abiola came to court on that fateful
day and said that his lawyer was
GOK Ajayi. Chief FRA Williams took
his wig and left. It has happened in
so many cases in history. Sometimes,
when cases like this come up you
could have many family interests at
work that when one family is
projecting one another family is
projecting another. But all these
things are family affairs that would
be resolved before the next
adjournment.
Do you have any other issue you
want to mention?
What I want to say now is to enjoin
all the supporters of my client to
continue in the way they are going.
They have had protests in Enugu,
Asaba, Owerri, Port Harcout, Aba,
and different other cities without
the molestation of other members of
society. I want to enjoin them to
remain law abiding. What we are
seeing is to be expected. Judiciary is
a very slow wheel, it moves slowly
but it will finally get to its
destination. So they should remain
law abiding and respect both those
who believe in what they are doing
and those who do not. Thank you Dnt forget to subscribe and follow