UPDATED: Kanu's lead lawyer Agabi denies being prevented from seeing him
Former Attorney General of the Federation and lead defence counsel in the terrorism trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, Kanu Agabi (SAN), has dismissed reports claiming that he and his team were denied access to their client by the Department of State Services (DSS) on Monday.
Agabi clarified on Wednesday during the resumed hearing of the case, in response to a query by Justice James Omotosho. The judge had sought clarification on whether a claim made by a member of the defence team, Alloy Ejimakor, on social media was accurate. Ejimakor had alleged that DSS operatives denied the legal team access to Kanu.
In his response, Agabi refuted the claim, stating that no such incident occurred. He attributed the misinformation to a mix-up on Ejimakor’s part and praised the DSS officials for their respectful and courteous conduct.
Agabi said, “I was not denied access to the defendant. We had arranged to go there with me, Ikpeazu, Etiaba, and Erokoro. But for some reason, they were not available.
“When I got to the gate around 1 pm, they said our name had not arrived. To be fair, they (the DSS officials) showed me enough respect. I said I will come back on another date,” he said.
Read Also: Kanu broadcast led to killing Gulak, others, witness tells court
He added that he was surprised and became angry when he learnt that a member of his team had put on the internet that he was not allowed access to the defendant.
When asked by the judge what informed his decision, Ejimakor said he thought Agabi was angry that he was denied access to Kanu when they spoke on the phone, a position the ex-AGF countered and explained that he got angry because Ejimakor gave him the wrong time for the appointment.
Ejimakor said that although the team’s appointment with the DSS was 2 pm, he told Agabi and others to come by 1 pm.
He said that when he arrived at the DSS’ gate by 2 pm, he was allowed in and had interaction with Kanu unhindered.
Ejimakor added that when he came out of where he met Kanu, he placed a call to Agabi to find out why he was not available, but that the ex-AGF sounded angry, which made him conclude that he (Agabi) was angry because he was denied access.
Agabi then faulted Ejimakor’s explanation and said he became angry because Ejimakor failed to answer his calls.
The ex-AGF said, “When I got to the gate at 1 pm, they (DSS officials) checked our names and they said the names were not there. I called him (Ejimakor) twice, and he did not pick and I left.
“I left because I had another appointment at the Gulf Club. He (Ejimakor) called me later and asked me to come back. That was why I was angry,” Agabi said.
In his intervention, Justice Omotosho advised Ejimakor to desist from asking other members of the defendant’s legal team to come to the DSS when an appointment is given for 2 pm.
The judge added: “I will say this without hesitation. You have not acted professionally. You are a senior counsel, Please learn to act accordingly.”
Justice Omotosho said he brought the incident up because he thought the defence lawyers were denied access to the defendant.
Prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, commended the judge for his intervention, which has helped to shed light on what happened.
Earlier in the proceedings, Awomolo tendered through the second prosecution witness documents described as the death certificate of the late Senior Special Adviser to former President Goodluck Jonathan, Ahmed Gulak.
The court admitted the document in evidence in the absence of any objection from the defence.
Upon a request from Awomolo, the about two-paragraph document, with hospital number: 013/931, dated July 18, 2021 was read by the witness.
From the report, the witness said Gulak was shot dead on May 30, 2021, by some hoodlums believed to be members of IPOB.
The witness, who was later cross-examined on Wednesday by Agabi, said the video recording of the interrogation session with Kanu in which he participated on July 17, 2021, reflected all that occurred during the encounter.
He rejected Agabi’s suggestion that the video was not a complete reflection of what transpired because it only showed the defendant and his two lawyers.
The witness also rejected Agabi’s suggestion that Kanu was kept in solitary confinement, claiming that the DSS does not keep people in solidarity confinement.
He agreed with Agabi that solitary confinement of a person for a long time constitutes cruel treatment. The witness insisted that it was not part of DSS’ practice.
The witness rejected Agabi’s claim that Kanu’s long detention has caused him psychological damage, saying he was not familiar with the defendant’s history of long detention.
He admitted that the defendant has been in detention since he interrogated him in 2021.
As against the claim by Agabi that Kanu has become an angry, frustrated and unhappy man, almost mad because of his prolonged detention, the witness said the defendant did not exhibit such traits when he appeared before them on July 17, 2021.
He also denied knowledge about why the prosecution amended the charge against Kanu many times.
The witness said he did not confront the defendant physically with the AGF, who wrote a letter demanding Kanu’s investigation for alleged terrorist activities.
He said, “We confronted him (the defendant) with the letter of the AGF, raising allegations against the defendant. We did not confront the defendant with the AGF and other persons who made allegations against him.
The witness rejected Agabi’s suggestion that the AGF foisted a conclusion on the DSS in his letter, which explained why the DSS conducted no investigation.
He said he was aware that the governors of the South West states came together to form Amotekun to protect the southwest from security issues, adding that Amotekun was formed as a vigilante group by the governors of the South West.
On whether the AGF wrote the DSS to investigate the formation of Amotekun, the witness said it is not all the letters that is sent to the DSS that he sees.
At a point, Agabi sought an adjournment to enable him to retrieve some documents from the police, which he said would aid the defendant’s preparation for his defence.
Although the prosecution rejected the defence’s request for adjournment, arguing that it was unmeritorious, Justice Omotosho said he would grant the adjournment sought because the defendant was entitled to be afforded sufficient time and facilities to prepare for his defence.
Justice Omotosho, however, advised the defence to make good use of the time accorded to it and avoid undue delay. He then adjourned till May 21 for the continuation of the trial.
