Sowore’s Trial Adjourned Over Falana’s Objection – TheNigerialawyer

There was a mild drama at Court 7, Federal High Court, Abuja, as
application by the Department of State Services (DSS) counsel,
Hassan Liman, to take witnesses in the ongoing trial of Omoyele
Sowore, Convener, #RevolutionNow Protest, in camera failed.

Sowore, alongside Olawale Bakare, is charged by the DSS with
treasonable felony, money laundering, among others.

News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu
had, on Oct. 21, adjourned commencement of trial till Nov. 6 and
Nov. 7, after varying the bail conditions granted Sowore, and his
co-defendant, Bakare.

Justice Ojukwu had granted the order in a ruling on the
application for bail variation by the duo.

However, on Wednesday before the commencement of the trial,
screen shield was already set up in the court for witnesses to be
taken.

But it was dismantled shortly before Justice Ojukwu took her
seat.

As soon as court proceeding started, DSS Counsel, Liman, SAN,
told the court that the agency was ready to commence the trial
based on the order of the court in the last sitting.

However, Counsel to the 1st defendant, Femi Falana, SAN, prayed
the court for an adjournment of the matter to enable them perfect
the defendants’ bail conditions.

Falana, who told the court that the security outfit had made it
difficult for them to have access to the defendants to prepare for
the trial, said even in court, they were only given less than five
minutes to converse with them.

Quoting the law, he said defendants are expected to be given
adequate time and facilities for their defence.

Falana hinted that all the bail conditions have been met but
they needed time to perfect them.

He also accused the DSS of planning a secret trail for his
client.

However, Counsel to the DSS, Liman, SAN, objected to the
application for adjournment, saying the defendants counsel had had
ample time to perfect the bail conditions and prepare for the
trial.

Liman, who disagreed that the DSS had not given them opportunity
to meet the defendants, said they were given unrestricted access to
them.

Unhappy with Liman’s response, Falana told Justice Ojukwu that
the prosecution counsel had told him before the commencement of the
trial that their witnesses would be taken in camera.

He said Liman’s statement was evident with the setting up of
screen shield by the witness box close to the judge’s door.

According to Falana, I was told that the witnesses will come in
through My Lord’s door to the screen shield where they will
testify.

“They have made arrangement with the deputy chief registrar to
take the witnesses on camera without our knowledge.

“This is an ambush. But all of a sudden, the court Clark
dismantled the shield,” he said.

The lawyer said when Liman discovered that the plan did not, he
approached him for a cooperation.

He said the act was meant to embarrass the court and the
defendants.

When Justice Ojukwu asked Liman on what transpired, the DSS told
the court that an application was made to take the witnesses in
camera.

He said though it was not a judicial arrangement, an
administrative arrangement was made in that regard through the
Deputy Chief Registrar (DCR) of the court, Mr Femi Ekperobe.

Justice Ojukwu, therefore, summoned the DCR to explained why
such arrangement was made without the court’s knowledge.

Ekperobe, who confirmed the development, told the court that
such arrangement is meant for high profile cases.

He said “the prosecution counsel made an application to the
effect to which an approval was given in view of high profile
nature of the case.”

The judge, who was unaware of the arrangement, asked the
prosecution counsel “who is in charge of the court?”

Liman, who responded that the judge was in charge of the court,
said they would appropriately apply to the court.

Then the DCR was asked to go.

However, Justice Ojukwu, who asked the prosecution counsel to
call the first witness, ruled that the court was of the view to
commence trial because when the court granted defendants bail in
the last adjourned date, the court ordered accelerated hearing on
the case.

Liman then read the charges against the defendants.

While he was about to call the 1st witness, Falana objected to
the move.

Falana, in response, told the court that the DSS had not served
them with the witnesses’ statements and the video recordings to
enable the defence counsel prepare for the trial contrary to the
ACJA Act.

The human rights lawyer, who described the act as plans by the
security agency to ambush them, said the DSS was not ready for the
trial.

Justice Ojukwu assured that justice would be done in the case
despite the decision to continue with the case.

“This court does not condone frivolity. Neither the prosecution
nor the defence counsel can control this court.

“The court has final decision whether anyone has made
arrangement or not,” she said.

Ojukwu said that every trial has a constitutional
background.

The judge, therefore, asked if the prosecution counsel had
served the defence counsel with the documents and attached the
video recordings.

She said the prosecution counsel ought to have served the
defendants with all the documents that would assist them in the
defence.

The judge, who said it was the right of the defence counsel to
request for any document that would assist them, said no one can
waste the precious time of the court.

On his part, Liman said there was no legal requirement that
required the defence to be served the written statements of
witnesses since they would have been served with their names and
briefs.

The judge asked if they were not entitled to the documents and
Liman gave a yes response.

The DSS counsel, therefore, applied for more time to continue
the trial and Falana did not object it.

Justice Ojukwu adjourned the matter till Dec. 5 and Dec. 6 for
commencement of trial. (NAN)