JUDICIARY: FG, DEFENSE COUNSELS DISAGREE OVER DELAYS IN TRIAL OF IMN MEMBERS

Kaduna Northwest- Nigeria: The ensuing court case between the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, otherwise called Shi'ites group and Federal Government of Nigeria has continued with legal counsels from both sides putting up strong defenses.


At the resumed sitting of the case at the High Court, Tuesday in Kaduna, there ensued a heated debate from the prosecution and defence legal counsels from both sides over admittance of evidence at the ongoing trial of the members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN).

During cross examination of the Prosecution Witness (PW) 43, the prosecution counsel had sought the court’s permission to admit exhibit A70 which is the statement of one of the accused persons, Mohammed Ahmed which was reported to have been recorded during  December 14, 2015.

However, the Defence counsel, led by Barrister Maxwell Kyon, citing section 83 of the evidence act, he begged the court not to admit the evidence.

“This document ought to be rejected. The witness has not admitted that he took the statement, he said someone else, who has not appeared in court recorded the statement. We appeal sir, that what this witness seeks to do is hearsay evidence. Our position is that this document ought to be thrown out and rejected,” he said.

But the prosecution, led by the Kaduna State Director of Public Prosecution, Bayero Dari, prayed the court to admit the evidence, in view of its relevance to the proceeding.

“Primary thing in admission of a document is its relevance in the matter. By section 4 of the evidence act, and section 7 of same act, the document is admissible,” the prosecution argued.

Presiding judge, Justice Shir Nyoms in his ruling, admitted the document on the ground of its relevance to the case.

“I have listened to arguments of both parties. The essence of documents is to assist courts. Since efforts to reach the person that recorded the statement proved abortive, the statement is hereby admitted as exhibit A70", Justice Nyoms stated.

The defence counsel however, protested the delays the trial was going through, and therefore prayed for the court to admit all statements in bulk instead of treating them individually, which was time consuming.

However, the prosecution insisted on treating each individually, in spite of the judge’s appeal that he would soon go on break to resume next year.

A mild drama however occured during the sitting when the PW43, CSP Ibrahim Abdul requested to be allowed to sit while giving testifying explaining that he had been on the road from Port Harcourt to attend the hearing and has not had enough rest on arrival.

The judge, Justice Nyoms told him he was a young man and should be able to stand throughout his testimony, but later allowed him to sit, after sighting permission of Barrister Kyon, who said he had no objection with that.

“My Lord I have no objection to that, if he so wishes, he can even sleep", Kyon said.