Wike Expresses Readiness to Testify in Separatist Leader’s Trial if Summoned

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has stated that he will appear as a witness in the trial of detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader Nnamdi Kanu if formally subpoenaed by the court, whilst questioning why he was included on the defendant’s witness list.

Mr Wike made the remarks during his monthly media interaction in Abuja on Friday, responding to his inclusion amongst 23 prominent Nigerians whom the IPOB leader seeks to call as witnesses in his terrorism trial before the Federal High Court. The minister expressed puzzlement at being listed but confirmed his willingness to comply with any court summons.

The Federal Capital Territory minister questioned why the detained separatist leader had included him amongst his witnesses, noting that he had not volunteered to serve in that capacity. He suggested that Mr Kanu should be asked directly about his reasons for listing the minister, emphasising that the decision was not his own.

Mr Wike stated that one does not become a witness merely by reading about such designation in publications, noting that no formal legal process has been served upon him. He clarified that nobody has subpoenaed him, and therefore he will not take action simply because he has seen his name on a list circulated in media reports.

However, the minister made clear that should the court issue a formal summons requiring his attendance, he would comply with that legal obligation. His comments indicated a distinction between informal listing by a defendant and formal court orders requiring witness testimony.

The court has approved Mr Kanu’s application to subpoena the listed individuals, with Justice James Omotosho confirming on Thursday that witness summonses had been signed and were ready for collection. The judge indicated that the detained IPOB leader was expected to personally collect and serve the summonses on the witnesses in accordance with legal procedure.

Mr Kanu listed the minister amongst what he described as “vital and compellable witnesses” who would be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act 2011. The detained leader filed the motion personally on 21 October, informing the court of his readiness to commence his defence as ordered.

Others included on the witness list are former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami, retired Generals Theophilus Danjuma and Tukur Buratai, Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Imo State Governor Hope Uzodinma, Works Minister Dave Umahi, and former Abia State Governor Okezie Ikpeazu. The list also includes former security chiefs and intelligence agency directors.

Mr Kanu divided his proposed 23 witnesses into two categories: ordinary but material witnesses, and vital and compellable witnesses who would be formally summoned. He requested a 90-day timeframe to enable him to conclude his defence, though the court had initially granted him only six consecutive days beginning from 23 October.

It remains unclear how the detained separatist leader intends to use the testimonies of these high-profile individuals for his defence, or whether they had foreknowledge of the plan to have them summoned. The IPOB leader stands trial on terrorism charges stemming from what prosecutors characterise as violence-inciting separatist campaigns.

The prosecution closed its case in June after presenting five witnesses who blamed killings and destruction of property in the South-east on Mr Kanu’s allegedly inciteful secessionist rhetoric disseminated through social media platforms. The defence stage of the trial was subsequently delayed by various intervening applications and complaints of ill-health by the defendant.

Justice Omotosho ordered on 16 October that Mr Kanu should commence his defence on 24 October, but proceedings on Thursday took an unexpected turn when the detained leader announced he had dismissed his entire legal team and would represent himself. His former lead counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi, confirmed the withdrawal, stating the defence team respected Mr Kanu’s decision.

Following the dismissal of his lawyers, Mr Kanu declined to open his defence, insisting instead that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him. He argued that the federal government had disobeyed a previous Court of Appeal judgement ordering his release, and that the laws under which he was charged had been repealed.

The detained leader also alleged denial of fair hearing, claiming that his detention by the Department of State Services hindered proper consultation with his lawyers. Additionally, he rejected a medical report presented by a Nigerian Medical Association team, describing it as falsified.

The prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, countered that Mr Kanu’s claims carried no legal weight since they were not supported by a sworn affidavit. He stated that the Supreme Court had on 15 December 2023 nullified the Court of Appeal judgement on which the defendant relied, meaning the judgement that discharged him had been set aside.

Justice Omotosho reminded Mr Kanu that the court had previously found he had a case to answer, giving him an opportunity to present his defence in line with his constitutional right to fair hearing. The judge urged the defendant to make good use of the opportunity to tell his side of the story.

The minister’s comments about his potential testimony came shortly after protests demanding Mr Kanu’s unconditional release resulted in arrests of demonstrators including one of the detained leader’s lawyers and his brother. Human rights activist Omoyele Sowore led the Monday protest in Abuja before being arrested himself on Thursday.

Mr Wike’s indication that he would testify if properly summoned suggests that several high-profile government officials may eventually appear in court, potentially creating a significant public spectacle. However, the legal proceedings must first resolve questions about jurisdiction and procedural matters raised by the defendant.

The Federal Capital Territory minister’s previous role as Rivers State governor and his prominence in Nigerian politics may be relevant to whatever defence strategy Mr Kanu intends to pursue, though the specific nature of testimony expected from him remains unknown. His willingness to comply with court orders whilst questioning the basis for his inclusion reflects a cautious approach to the unusual situation.

The detained IPOB leader has been in Department of State Services custody since June 2021 following his arrest and rendition from Kenya. His trial has spanned years of legal battles, political tension, and public protests, with supporters continuing to demand his unconditional release whilst the government maintains he must face justice for alleged offences against the state.

Whether all listed witnesses will ultimately appear in court depends on successful service of summonses, their responses to such service, and resolution of the various procedural and jurisdictional challenges currently before the court. The minister’s conditional agreement to testify represents one potential element in what promises to be a complex and closely watched legal proceeding.

As the case continues to unfold, attention will focus on whether Mr Kanu proceeds with his defence, whether he succeeds in compelling testimony from the high-profile individuals he has listed, and how such testimony might affect the outcome of his terrorism trial. The minister’s response suggests that whilst he questions the rationale for his inclusion, he recognises the importance of complying with formal judicial processes.