A Federal High Court in Abuja has barred Favour, the sister-in-law of Nnamdi Kanu, from attending his ongoing terrorism trial. The court issued the order after finding her in contempt for live-streaming court proceedings on social media.
Justice James Omotosho ruled that Favour’s actions were disrespectful and disruptive to the court’s proceedings. He emphasized that her conduct violated the sanctity of the judicial process and undermined the authority of the court.
The judge’s decision prohibits Favour from entering the court premises unless she is personally involved in a case. This move underscores the court’s commitment to maintaining order and respect within the judicial system.
In a significant development, the court has rejected statements obtained from Nnamdi Kanu by the Department of State Services (DSS) in 2015. Justice Omotosho ruled that these statements were inadmissible because they were taken without the presence of Kanu’s legal representatives.
The judge expunged the video recordings of Kanu’s interviews with DSS officials from the court’s records. This decision aligns with previous rulings that emphasize the importance of legal representation during interrogations to ensure fairness and protect the rights of the accused.
The prosecution has introduced new evidence in the ongoing terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu. A video recording was presented, showing Kanu making inflammatory statements during an interview with an online platform.
In the video, Kanu allegedly referred to Nigeria as a “zoo” and accused several prominent Igbo figures of various offenses. He also threatened violence if his objective for Biafra was not achieved, stating, “If they do not give us Biafra, there will be nothing living in the zoo.”
The defense team questioned the authenticity of the video and the credibility of the prosecution’s witness, who admitted under cross-examination that he did not investigate the veracity of Kanu’s allegations.
Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has been facing trial on charges of terrorism and treasonable felony. The trial has experienced delays due to judicial recusals and disputes over the admissibility of evidence.
Kanu’s legal team has consistently challenged the proceedings, citing concerns over fairness and due process. The case has attracted significant public attention, with supporters and critics closely monitoring developments.
As the trial continues, legal experts and observers anticipate further legal challenges and potential appeals, which could prolong the resolution of the case.
