Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected key exhibits presented by the Federal Government in the terrorism case against Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu.

The rejected evidence includes statements dated October 21, 24, and November 4, 2015, which Kanu made to operatives of the Department of State Service (DSS) during interrogation sessions. The court also rejected video recordings of these statements.

Justice Omotosho delivered the ruling on Thursday following a trial-within-trial conducted to verify Kanu's allegations that he was coerced into making the statements under duress.

Legal Basis for Rejection

In his ruling, Justice Omotosho acknowledged that while the video evidence showed the statements were taken in a cordial environment with no visible signs of coercion, he could not overlook Kanu's consistent complaints about the absence of his legal counsel during the interrogations.

The judge cited Section 15 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which stipulates that when a suspect is arrested without a warrant, their statement must be obtained in the presence of their counsel. In the absence of personal counsel, an officer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria or a member of civil society must be present.

"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 stated.

He further referenced Section 32 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees any accused person the right to legal representation.

Court's Final Decision

The judge concluded by formally declaring both the written statements and video recordings inadmissible as evidence in the case.

"I hereby order as follows: 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," he ruled.

The ruling represents a significant procedural setback for the prosecution in the ongoing terrorism trial against the Biafra agitator, highlighting the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures when obtaining evidence from suspects.