The Federal High Court in Abuja has warned lawyers representing four alleged members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) against further delays in their trial over the alleged kidnapping and killing of an officer of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning on Wednesday, October 21, after defence lawyers requested additional time to prepare their cases, preventing the prosecution from opening its case as scheduled.
The defendants, Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, also called Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, popularly known as Ability, are facing six criminal counts relating to alleged terrorism and kidnapping.
All four defendants pleaded not guilty when they were arraigned on September 28, 2026.
How the Alleged Kidnapping and Killing Occurred
According to the prosecution, the case arose from the alleged abduction of DSS operative Ekpeyong Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.
Prosecutors claim the officer was taken hostage and subsequently killed. They also allege that the four defendants participated in activities connected with IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN).
The charges further include allegations of unlawful possession of firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.
The allegations form part of a broader terrorism case brought against the defendants following investigations into the officer’s abduction and death.
However, the accusations remain unproven, and the defendants have denied any wrongdoing.
Court Approves Protection for Prosecution Witnesses
At Wednesday’s proceedings, prosecution lawyer Munirat Oladunjoye requested permission to conceal the identities of witnesses expected to testify.
She relied on Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, arguing that protective measures were necessary because of the nature of the charges.
Kelvin Ekwe, representing the first and second defendants, opposed the request.
He maintained that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that revealing the witnesses’ identities would compromise the proceedings.
Ekwe also argued that the application should have been submitted formally, allowing the defence an opportunity to respond. He referred to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
Justice Abdulmalik rejected the objection and approved the prosecution’s request.
The judge ruled that protecting witness identities was appropriate given the terrorism allegations. She directed that the first prosecution witness be identified in court by the code name AB.
She also warned that violations of the relevant witness-protection provisions under Section 232(5) of the ACJA could attract a one-year prison sentence.
Defence Lawyers Seek More Time
Following the ruling on witness protection, Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, representing the third and fourth defendants, told the court that he had only recently joined the case.
He requested additional time to examine the case documents and prepare his clients’ defence.
Ekwe also sought an adjournment, explaining that the prosecution had only just provided him with video evidence relevant to the proceedings.
Oladunjoye opposed the request, arguing that the newly supplied footage was not scheduled to be presented during Wednesday’s hearing.
She also reminded the court that an earlier sitting on October 6 had been adjourned because Ekwe was absent.
The disagreement intensified when both defence lawyers attempted to address the court at the same time.
Justice Abdulmalik intervened, cautioning counsel to maintain courtroom discipline and respect established procedures.
Judge Emphasises Need for Speedy Trial
Justice Abdulmalik explained that the court was handling several urgent pre-election cases, including judgments required before November 9.
Despite the demanding schedule, she said the seriousness of the criminal allegations made it necessary to give the matter priority.
The judge eventually granted the defence lawyers a brief adjournment but made clear that unnecessary delays would not be tolerated.
She stressed the importance of conducting proceedings efficiently while maintaining proper courtroom standards.
The court subsequently fixed October 28, 2026, for the commencement of trial.
The four defendants remain presumed innocent unless the prosecution proves its allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
