As the trial of the leader of the proscribed IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu,
resumes on Monday, a former federal legislator who authored and
co-sponsored the Terrorism Act Amendment Bill of 2013, Kayode
Oladele, has called for a procedure that disallows those charged
with terrorist acts from using the trials as a propaganda
platform.
![image](/2021/07/Justice-Ejembi-Eko-1.jpg")
![image](/2021/07/lawpv.jpg")
Kanu was arrested from an unknown location and his extradition
to Nigeria was announced on June 27 by the country’s Attorney
General, Abubakar Malami.
![image](/2021/07/escrow-service1.jpg")
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the IPOB leader
was consequently arraigned before Justice Binta Nyako of the
Federal High Court, Abuja, amidst tight security on June 29.
The case was subsequently adjourned till July 26.
Oladele, a former Chairman of the House Committee on Financial
Crimes in the 8th Assembly, however, canvassed the need for a
closed trial of terrorists.
He advised the Federal Government to embrace secrecy in court
terrorism trials, being the model used by several Western
nations.
According to him, acts of terrorism are tantamount to acts of
war.
The former lawmaker stated these in a five-page article
entitled: “Terrosim Trials: An Overview of the Delicate Balance
between National Security and Human Rights.”
The lawmaker said all terrorism trials anywhere in the world by
their nature were always full of intricacies which involved several
difficult legal issues bordering on procedure, conflict of laws
including the protection of witnesses, issues of disclosure and the
use of sensitive evidence during trials.
He urged the Federal Government to ensure a balancing between
national security and fairness of proceedings at all stages through
proper protection of human rights standards as an international law
obligation by the state
The legal practitioner also advised the government to adopt
secrecy in the process, maintaining that this had been the common
practice globally.
He said: “Secrecy of terrorism trials, which is another common
feature of terrorism trials globally, can be found in Nigerian
law.
” Section 31(3) of the 2011 Act provides that the court may, on
motion by or on behalf of the prosecuting agency, in the interest
of public safety or order, exclude from proceedings instituted for
any offence under this Act, any person other than the parties and
their legal representatives.
“Surprisingly, the 2011 Terrorism Act did not create a separate
court for the trial of terrorists.
” The jurisdiction is still vested in the Federal High Court
which presumably is expected to use the same procedure used for the
prosecution of other criminal cases in terrorism trials, a
significant departure from what is obtainable in several other
jurisdictions where in addition to secret trials, separate courts
such as Military Tribunals are usually used for the trial of
terrorism cases.”
He also quoted Section 30 of the 2011 Act as giving the
Attorney- General of the Federation the general powers to institute
and undertake criminal proceedings on behalf of the Federal
Government of Nigeria even though he may “delegate his power to any
agency charged with responsibility of terrorists investigation to
institute criminal proceedings against any person in respect of
offences categorised” in the Act, ” which he put forward as
empowering the government to justify to mode of the proceedings.
”
“Realising that acts of terrorism are tantamount to acts of war,
several Western nations including the United States and United
Kingdom not only try most terrorism cases secretly by Special
Tribunals, they also sometimes adopt special procedures in order to
protect national security, public interest and also “achieve a high
rate of conviction that would not be achievable in the regular
courts, where “due process” is diligently pursued.
“In the trial of terrorists, therefore, the focus is mainly
about “dispensing military justice attendant to a military
conflict”, not necessarily (though important), the protection of
the fundamental rights of the terrorists,” he said.
As the trial of the leader of the proscribed IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu,
resumes on Monday, a former federal legislator who authored and
co-sponsored the Terrorism Act Amendment Bill of 2013, Kayode
Oladele, has called for a procedure that disallows those charged
with terrorist acts from using the trials as a propaganda
platform.
Kanu was arrested from an unknown location and his extradition
to Nigeria was announced on June 27 by the country’s Attorney
General, Abubakar Malami.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the IPOB leader
was consequently arraigned before Justice Binta Nyako of the
Federal High Court, Abuja, amidst tight security on June 29.
The case was subsequently adjourned till July 26.
Oladele, a former Chairman of the House Committee on Financial
Crimes in the 8th Assembly, however, canvassed the need for a
closed trial of terrorists.
He advised the Federal Government to embrace secrecy in court
terrorism trials, being the model used by several Western
nations.
According to him, acts of terrorism are tantamount to acts of
war.
The former lawmaker stated these in a five-page article
entitled: “Terrosim Trials: An Overview of the Delicate Balance
between National Security and Human Rights.”
The lawmaker said all terrorism trials anywhere in the world by
their nature were always full of intricacies which involved several
difficult legal issues bordering on procedure, conflict of laws
including the protection of witnesses, issues of disclosure and the
use of sensitive evidence during trials.
He urged the Federal Government to ensure a balancing between
national security and fairness of proceedings at all stages through
proper protection of human rights standards as an international law
obligation by the state
The legal practitioner also advised the government to adopt
secrecy in the process, maintaining that this had been the common
practice globally.
He said: “Secrecy of terrorism trials, which is another common
feature of terrorism trials globally, can be found in Nigerian
law.
” Section 31(3) of the 2011 Act provides that the court may, on
motion by or on behalf of the prosecuting agency, in the interest
of public safety or order, exclude from proceedings instituted for
any offence under this Act, any person other than the parties and
their legal representatives.
“Surprisingly, the 2011 Terrorism Act did not create a separate
court for the trial of terrorists.
” The jurisdiction is still vested in the Federal High Court
which presumably is expected to use the same procedure used for the
prosecution of other criminal cases in terrorism trials, a
significant departure from what is obtainable in several other
jurisdictions where in addition to secret trials, separate courts
such as Military Tribunals are usually used for the trial of
terrorism cases.”
He also quoted Section 30 of the 2011 Act as giving the
Attorney- General of the Federation the general powers to institute
and undertake criminal proceedings on behalf of the Federal
Government of Nigeria even though he may “delegate his power to any
agency charged with responsibility of terrorists investigation to
institute criminal proceedings against any person in respect of
offences categorised” in the Act, ” which he put forward as
empowering the government to justify to mode of the proceedings.
”
“Realising that acts of terrorism are tantamount to acts of war,
several Western nations including the United States and United
Kingdom not only try most terrorism cases secretly by Special
Tribunals, they also sometimes adopt special procedures in order to
protect national security, public interest and also “achieve a high
rate of conviction that would not be achievable in the regular
courts, where “due process” is diligently pursued.
“In the trial of terrorists, therefore, the focus is mainly
about “dispensing military justice attendant to a military
conflict”, not necessarily (though important), the protection of
the fundamental rights of the terrorists,” he said.