The latest hearing before Justice Binta Nyako shed light on the unpreparedness of Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team for the ongoing trial. This issue arose when Ejimakor’s lawyer informed the court that the legal team was not ready for trial.
During a prior action by the Federal Government, Chief Counsel Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, had stated that the prosecution was prepared to begin the trial based on the court’s order at the last hearing.
Justice Nyako reviewed the two pending applications filed by Ejimakor on behalf of Kanu. The first application sought an order reinstating Kanu’s bail, which was revoked in 2017, while the second requested the transfer of the IPOB leader to house arrest.
Ejimakor argued that Kanu’s bail revocation was a result of authorities’ intervention during a break-in at Kanu’s residence. He contended that even the Supreme Court acknowledged that Kanu did not breach his promise to appear in court, but rather fled for his life.
However, the federal government’s counsel urged the court to dismiss Ejimakor’s arguments. He claimed that the court was unable to issue another order to set aside the previous bail revocation.
Awomolo emphasized that the defense’s stance was primarily based on a passing statement by one of the Supreme Court judges. He asserted that incidental comments do not determine the main issue and pointed out that Kanu, who is currently in custody, was not charged with money laundering but with terrorism, which he deemed the most severe charge under Nigerian law.
He also opposed the request to transfer Kanu to house arrest, stating that Ejimakor’s allegations lacked substantial evidence. Awomolo noted that the defense did not deny having access to their client.
Justice Nyako scheduled May 20 to deliver her ruling on the two motions and instructed the prosecution to present their witness. Although Awomolo confirmed the presence of a witness and readiness to proceed, Ejimakor insisted that they were unprepared to continue with the trial.
“We have not adequately prepared our client for the trial,” he stated, highlighting the importance of respecting Article 36(6) of the constitution for any lawyer to proceed with a trial.