Charles Okah and Obi Nwabueze, the accused standing trial for their alleged involvement in the October 1, 2010 blast, will on March 7, know their fate.
Justice Gabriel Kolawale of the Federal High Cour fixed the date for judgment on the terrorism trial after listening to the adoption of final addresses by the prosecuting and defence counsel.
Okah, Nwabueze, Edmund Ebiware and Tiemkemfa Francis-Osvwo (aka General Gbokos) were initially arraigned before the court on December 7, 2010 for their alleged involvement in the bomb blast which left about 12 people dead and several others injured.
Francis-Osvwo later died in prison custody, while Ebiware, who had his trial conducted separately, is serving life sentence upon his conviction in 2013.
When the matter was called, the prosecuting counsel, Mr Alex Izinyon, (SAN) urged the court to convict the defendants as charged since the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime.
The senior lawyer described Okah as a schemer, and the facilitator of the terrorism act of October 1, 2010.
“He is neck, head and toe deep in terrorism act”, he said.
He prayed the court to convict the defendants as charged and sentence them accordingly.
The defence counsel, Mr Emeka Okoroafor and Oghenovo Otemu, however, prayed the court to discharge and acquit their clients on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove that they took part in the bombing.
Otemu had tried to convince the court to acquit his client on the grounds the prosecution concealed evidence that was in his client’s favour in the course of the trial.
“My Lord, the second prosecution witness in ‘trial-within-trial’ gave evidence that the 2nd defendant made voluntary statement on August 18, 2010, at the headquarters of the Department of State Security Services, (DSS).
“This was corroborated by the prosecution witness but until now, that statement is not before this court because the prosecution tactically left it out.
“This amounts to concealment of evidence”, Otemu said.
In dismissing the no-case-submission, the court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through testimonies of witnesses which linked the defendants with the charges.
Comments