Pro-Biafra activist Nnamdi Kanu and associates David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu yesterday failed in their bid for a stay of proceedings.
A Federal High Court in Abuja struck out their motion pending the determination of their appeal.
Kanu and his associates are being tried on six-count of treasonable felony, illegal possession of firearms, managing an unlawful society, among others.
They had, through a motion by their lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, sought a stay pending the determination of their appeal against the court’s March 7, 2016, ruling shielding prosecution witnesses from public glare.
Kanu and his associates contended that Justice Tsoho’s March 7 decision, which varied his position not to allow masked witnesses, was given without jurisdiction.
The judge, on February 19, refused the prosecution’s motion for witness protection.
Justice Tsoho, yesterday, held that the motion lacked merit and ordered that their trial would proceed as directed by the court in its March 7 ruling.
The judge, who accused the defence of blackmailing the court, assured parties that the court would not succumb to their intrigues.
Justice Tsoho frowned at what he described as “intemperate language” by Ejiofor his application.
Identifying words, such as “prudence” and “common sense,” in the application, as uncomplimentary, Justice Tsoho said “virulent attacks on courts do not constitute a yardstick for the success of counsel.
“The logical inference to be drawn from this is that if the order of stay is not granted, then this court lacks prudence or common sense.
“Be that as it may, this court will not yield to blackmail,” the judge said.
In dismissing the defence’s motion, Justice Tsoho relied on Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which frowns at stay of proceedings in criminal cases.
The judge said contrary to the argument by defence lawyer Chuks Muoma (SAN), Section 306 of the Act did not deny a defendant the right to fair hearing.
Justice Tsoho noted that though Section 306 “encroached” on a judge’s discretion to grant stay in criminal trials, it never denied a party the right of appeal guaranteed in Section 241 of the Constitution.
The judge noted that the provision enhanced the right to speedy trial, which an accused was entitled to under the Constitution.
He added: “Section 306 of the ACJA removes hitches to a speedy trial, which is a component of fair hearing.”
Justice Tsoho made a distinction between the Kanu case and that of the Senate President Bukola Saraki, which defence cited in its request.
The Supreme Court had granted Saraki a stay at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
Justice Tsoho said the factors that informed the Supreme Court’s decision were not available in the instant case.
He noted that in the Saraki case, the need to allow the apex court determine the question of whether or not the CCT possessed criminal jurisdiction informed the order for a stay.
But the judge said such an issue was not available in the Kanu case.
“It is more so, given that the application for stay of proceedings is not founded on lack of intrinsic jurisdiction of this court, but on mode or procedure to be adopted in the trial. At this juncture, I hold with due respect and without any prejudice, that the circumstances of this application are not deserving of an order for stay of proceedings.
“Consequently, the application for an order of stay is refused and struck out. The effect is that the trial shall proceed in the manner ordered by this court, except there is contrary directive or order from the appropriate authority,” Justice Tsoho said.
He adjourned to June 20 for trial. The Nation
