(Nigeria) Incarcerated leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, Wednesday, pleaded not guilty to the six-count criminal charge of treasonable felony preferred against him by the Federal Government before a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
Kanu arraigned before Justice James Tsoho alongside two other pro-Biafra agitators, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, were accused of managing the affairs of the IPOB which government described as "an unlawful society."
The charge against them read “That you, Nnamdi Kanu and other unknown persons, now at large, at London, United Kingdom, between 2014 and September, 2015, with intention to levy war against Nigeria in order to force the President to change his measures of being the President of the Federation, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation as defined in Section 3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) by doing an act to wit: Broadcast on Radio Biafra your preparations for the states in the South- East geo-political zone, South-South geo-political zone, the Igala Community of Kogi State and the Idoma/Igede Community of Benue State to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria and form themselves into a Republic of Biafra, and thereby committed an offence punish- able under Section 41(C) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”
Shortly after the accused persons entered their plea to the charge, Justice Tsoho, in a bench ruling, ordered that they should be remanded in prison custody, following an application by Kanu's lawyer, Chief Chuks Muoma, SAN, who urged the court to order the Department of State Services, DSS, to transfer the accused persons to Kuje prison.
He argued that the prison was the most appropriate place as provided by the law, to remand an accused person that has pleaded to a charge.
The motion was opposed by the Director of Public Prosecution, DPP, Mr. Diri, who urged the court to allow the accused persons to remain in the custody of the DSS.
Diri argued that it would be more convenient for the prosecution to produce the accused persons to court for trial from the DSS detention facility, than from Kuje prison.
However, Justice Tsoho upheld the argument of counsel to the accused persons, noting that the Federal Government, being the complainant, has the capacity to not only guarantee security of the accused persons, but to also ensure that they are produced in court for trial.
The court adjourned till January 25, to hear arguments on whether or not the accused persons should be released on bail pending hearing and determination of the charge against him.