Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed crucial exhibits the Federal Government presented to prove terrorism charges against Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu.
The discarded evidence includes Kanu’s statements from October 21, 24, and November 4, 2015, given to operatives of the Department of State Service (DSS) during interrogation.
Also rejected were video recordings of these statements, ruled inadmissible by the judge.
Justice Omotosho’s decision came on the 29th of May, 2025, after a detailed ruling on the admissibility of the evidence. The judge acted on Kanu’s claims that parts of the statements were made under duress.
A trial within the trial was held to examine whether Kanu’s allegations of coercion, molestation, and harassment during the making of the statements were true.
The judge reviewed arguments from both sides and the evidence before concluding that the prosecution must prove Kanu’s statements were given voluntarily.
Kanu, Justice Omotosho noted, failed to demonstrate involuntariness during his testimony.
The judge observed that the video showed a calm setting during the statement, with no visible signs of coercion, contradicting Kanu’s claims.
READ ALSO: Kanu’s Trial Twist: IPOB Claims Govt Witness Not on Court List
Still, the court acknowledged Kanu’s repeated complaints about not having his lawyer present during interrogation and statement-taking.
Citing Section 15 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, Justice Omotosho stressed that statements from suspects arrested without a warrant must be recorded in the presence of their counsel or if unavailable, an officer from the Legal Aid Council or a civil society member.
He emphasized that video recordings are meant to prove statements were made voluntarily and with legal representation present.
The judge pointed to Section 32 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees every accused person the right to legal representation.
He ruled, “Even though the statement was recorded in video, the fact that the lawyer of the defendant is not available makes the statement inadmissible in evidence.”
Justice Omotosho ordered the expunging of both the statements and the video recordings from the evidence, declaring them inadmissible and rejected by the court.
He formally declared: “The statement of the defendant dated 21-24 October and November 4, 2015 are inadmissible in evidence. The video recordings of the statement are also declared inadmissible and marked rejected.”