A Federal High Court in Abuja has rescheduled ruling for September 26 on the no-case submission made by detained self-acclaimed leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

The IPOB leader is on trial on terrorism-related charges.

The Nation learnt yesterday that the ruling earlier scheduled for October 10 by Justice James Omotosho was brought forward to September 26.

It was also learnt that a judge has the prerogative to determine when to render a decision within the three months allowed by the Constitution, once parties are notified about the date.

Justice Omotosho had, on July 18, adjourned till October 10 for ruling on the no-case submission after lawyers to the parties made their submissions and adopted their written addresses.

In opposing Kanu?s no-case submission on July 18, prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), urged the court to direct Kanu to enter a defence in the terrorism charge for which he is being prosecuted.

Awomolo also urged the court to reject the no-case submission made by the defence and prayed the court to, instead, order him to explain why he engaged in terrorism-related activities that promoted violence and destruction, including the killing of not less than 170 security officials.

Awomolo, who adopted the prosecution?s address in opposition to the no-case submission made by Kanu, said the prosecution has supplied sufficient evidence in proof of all elements of the offences charged to warrant the court to call on the defendant to enter a defence.

The lawyer recalled that the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered many exhibits, including video and audio evidence, adding that, as against the claim by defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), the reply address of the prosecution addressed all issues raised, to the effect that the no case submission is of no moment.

Awomolo, who prayed the court to dismiss the no-case submission, argued that all the court was required to do at this stage of the case was to take a panoramic view of the evidence led so far and determine whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the defendant to warrant his being called to enter a defence.

He noted that the defence, in its no-case submission, attacked the credibility of the witnesses, the record and evidence led so far, which is not what is required at this stage.

Stressing why the court should reject the no-case submission, Awomolo noted that in both the video and audio evidence tendered by the prosecution, Kanu admitted being the leader of IPOB, which he knew was a proscribed group.

He added that Kanu also, in some other videos, admitted making broadcasts in which he allegedly called for violence and destruction.

Reading a portion of the defendant?s address in support of his no-case submission, Awomolo faulted Kanu?s lawyer?s argument that his several broadcasts amounted to a clear case of boasting that did not require criminal prosecution.

Awomolo argued that the law prohibits statements that have the possibility of causing fear in the minds of the people.

He added: ?Why will somebody say a terrorist, who boasted that security men and other people should be killed, should be allowed to go free??

Awomolo argued that the defendant aimed to create the separate state of Biafra, and in the process, not less than 170 security men were killed because of his boasting.

?Why was he boasting? Boasting is not the answer. If the defendant believes that he was merely joking and was a content creator, he should be made to answer why he was boasting and creating fear in the minds of the people.

?When a person is boasting and threatening death and violence, that cannot be said to be mere boasting,? Awomolo said.

The lawyer urged the court to call on the defendant to come and explain what his boasting was about.

He faulted the claim by Agabi (a former Attorney General of the Federation) that the defendant has been in solitary confinement for 10 years.

The prosecuting lawyer noted that Kanu, who was first arrested in 2015, was granted bail in 2017, which he enjoyed until 2022 when it was revoked because he jumped bail.

Awomolo said the current detention of the defendant was upon an order of the court, which found that he jumped the earlier bail granted him.

He also accused the defence legal team of being behind the delays experienced in the case before now.

Awomolo added: ?For three years, his counsel was responsible for the delay of the trial. The delay had been the shenanigans of the defence team, not that of the prosecution

?Their claim that this case has lasted for 10 years is not true. They are the cause of the delay,? he said.

Harping on Kanu?s argument that IPOB was not lawfully proscribed, Awomolo contended that since the issue was currently before the Supreme Court, it would be inappropriate for the trial court to pronounce on whether or not the proscription was properly done.

In urging the court to allow the no-case submission, Agabi argued that all the prosecution has succeeded in doing is to paint a picture that the defendant is a bad man.

He contended that no single element of the offences charged was proved by the prosecution, adding that the prosecution did not bring anyone before the court who said he was incited by Kanu?s broadcasts.

Agabi said: ?This man (Kanu) can boast. He was just boasting. He said I can bring the world to a standstill. I don?t see anything wrong with that. You don?t prosecute a man for mere boasting.?

The defence lawyer drew the court?s attention to the wave of killings in most parts of the country and argued that the defendant was equally concerned with the state of insecurity in the country.

Insisting that the defendant did nothing wrong, Agabi said the defence team tendered evidence in the case where the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Adeola Ajayi and a former Defence Minister, Theophilus Danjuma, were heard advocating that people should defend themselves against attacks.

Agabi argued that ?what the defendant said was that the people should defend themselves.?

He faulted the #EndSARS report tendered by the prosecution because it was not authenticated.

Agabi said his client has been under solitary confinement for more than six years, noting that under International Law, solitary confinement must not exceed 15 days.

?He (the defendant) is no longer normal on account of his solitary confinement. The case has been pending for 10 years.

?Memories have been lost, which is why most of the prosecution witnesses were saying they can?t remember, they don?t know, when they were asked questions,? he said.

Agabi also faulted the death reports tendered by the prosecution, arguing that the reports were tendered without the doctors being invited to be cross-examined.

According to him, from the record of proceedings, the witnesses called by the prosecution said ?I don?t remember, I am not aware, I do not know? for 80 times, when they were being questioned.

He argued that such responses from witnesses do not satisfy the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agabi, who said the defence team raised 40 points in its address, stated that the prosecution failed to respond to 10 issues which the defence raised.

?If they (prosecution) failed to respond to one or two issues, it is enough for the court to acquit the defendant. But, in this case, the prosecution failed to respond to 10 issues raised by the defence.

?The participation of the witnesses was not more than obtaining statements. The statements obtained from the defendant were not investigated,

?All the witnesses came from the DSS. That is why they kept saying I can?t remember, I am not aware because they did nothing,? he said.

Agabi urged the court not to attach probative value to the additional evidence filed after trial had commenced in the case.

He noted that the charge had been amended about seven times, but no persons? names were reflected as those who were incited by the defendant.

Agabi faulted the proscription of IPOB, arguing that proscription does not lie without the President?s approval. ?

He added: ?Without the President?s approval, there cannot be any proscription.

?We are saying there is no proscription, because there is no presidential approval; if they have it, they should bring it.

Agabi argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try the charge relating to the alleged unlawfully imported transmitter, noting that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on that. (The Nation)