A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, reserved ruling in the ongoing trial of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, over the admissibility of a video interview conducted in 2015 by the DSS tendered by the prosecuting counsel in a trial-within-a-trial.

Justice James Omotoso fixed the ruling for 2:00 p.m. after parties adopted their final written addresses earlier in the day.

Leading the prosecution, Suraj Saida (SAN) adopted the written address on behalf of the Federal Government, urging the court to discountenance objections raised by the defense and admit the video evidence in question.

“We have filed our written submission in line with extant laws and urge the court to adopt the same,” Saida submitted. “The foundation for the admissibility of the video has been properly laid. Though the defense claims the defendant’s counsel was absent when the video was made, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) does not make presence of counsel mandatory for admissibility.”

Saida added that the atmosphere during the interview with the Department of State Services (DSS) appeared friendly and did not suggest coercion. He also argued that the Court of Appeal had previously held that the absence of counsel does not render such evidence inadmissible.

However, counsel to the defendant, Paul Erokoro (SAN), disagreed, arguing that the video in question was involuntarily obtained and should be expunged from the court’s record.

“The defense’s position is anchored on three points: the absence of Kanu’s lawyers, threats made to him by a DSS investigator, and the manner in which the statements were obtained,” Erokoro argued. “Mr. Brown Ukuaba of the DSS was specifically mentioned by Kanu as the officer who allegedly coerced him. The defendant maintains the video was edited and not reflective of a voluntary statement.”

Erokoro added that while the prosecution relied on the word “may” in earlier appeal decisions regarding the court’s power to expunge improperly admitted evidence, the Supreme Court had since reversed that position. He urged the court to reject and delete the video evidence from the record.

Responding to the court’s inquiry on the contents of the exhibits marked PWQ and PWR—which correspond to the videos showing Kanu’s statements while in DSS custody—Saida argued that the documents were admissible and that the law permits the court to determine whether such evidence should remain on record, even if counsel was not present during the making of the statement.

The court rose briefly at 12:47 p.m. to reconvene around 2:00 p.m. to deliver the ruling.