Allegations of “Judicial rascality” has
been leveled against an Abuja Judge, Justice
John Tsoho
– Justice Tsoho is said to have ruled against
judicial oath
– The IPOB has written a petition against
Tsoho
An Abuja judge has been accused of committing
judicial “rascality” over two different rulings given on
the trial of the leader of the Indigenous People of
Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
IPOB wants Nnamdi Kanu, its detained leader,
released.
The judge, Justice John Tsoho has been alleged to
have given conflicting rulings on the same issue
raised during the trial of Kanu.
This is supported by true copies of the said rulings
obtained by this newspaper.However, what is not in
doubt is that the two rulings contradict each other
and both rulings were made in the same court by
the same judge.
READ ALSO: MUST READ: President Buhari gives
final verdict on referendum for Biafra
In his petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC)
against Justice Tsoho, the IPOB leader, has called
for an investigation into the rulings of the court over
the permission granted the Department of State
Services to protect its witness in his trial.
In the petition written by Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi
Ejiofor, the IPOB leader said the conduct of the
judge in the trial of his client is in fundamental
breach of his judicial oath.
Part of the petition read: “That on the 9th day of
February, 2016, the defense was ambushed
with an application filed on that day by the
prosecution, seeking the court’s endorsement
for secret trial of the defendants.
“The defense led by chief Chuks Muoma,
SAN, promptly notified the court of our
intention to oppose the application, pursuant
to which it was thereafter adjourned to the
19th day of February, 2016, for the hearing of
the application,” the petition said.
Kanu through his lawyer Ifeanyi Ejiofor had in
various past interviews had said that such action by
the judge can only be referred to as “judicial
rascality” and shows that the judge was undoubtedly
acting to a script or influenced by orders higher
than himself.
He also said because under the Nigerian judicial
system, a court cannot alter it’s own judgement
without the benefit of an appeal to a superior court.
READ ALSO: Boko Haram leader releases new
video on Chibok girls
The judge’s action as evidenced by documents and
the court’s contradictory rulings at our disposal goes
contrary to every code of judicial conduct and ethics
known to law.In the petition, Kanu also called for a
correction of the “rascality” made by the judge in
accordance with the Oath Act.
The petition also said that several attempts by the
defense team to obtain court’s rulings and
proceedings of the court remained unsuccessfully
until an intervention by the chief judge of the Federal
High Court in the matter.
“The rulings (of the court) were eventually
given to us on Monday, the 25th day of April,
2016, barely two months and fifteen days
after the ruling of 9th February, 2016, was
delivered, two months and six days after the
ruling of 19th day of February, 2016 was
delivered and one month and 18 days after
the ruling of 7th March, 2016 was delivered.”
It also said that Section 36(7) of the 1999
Constitution as amended allows a court or tribunal
only seven days to keep its record in a criminal
trial.
It said: “That on the face of the application to
stay further proceedings in the matter,
pending the outcome of the appeal
challenging the court’s variation of its order,
the court would have ordinarily been spurred
to br expeditious in its attention to our
request. Rather, his lordship remained firm in
his resolve to frustrate the defense,” the
petition said.
The petition noted that even the lead counsel in the
matter, Chuks Muoma was shut out in an open court
by Justice Tsoho from adumbrating his written brief
in support of its application for stay of proceedings
even when court rules allows for 20 minutes of oral
argument.
READ ALSO: BREAKING: Niger Delta Avengers
bomb Bonny export line
Some senior lawyers who spoke on the
contradictory rulings said for a judge to deliver a
ruling and sit on appeal over that same ruling in
order to deliver another judgement beneficial to the
prosecution is unheard of.
The petition also highlighting series of events that
occurred during the trial of Kanu stated that the
judge who had earlier denied an application made
by DSS counsel in what appears to be a breach of
judicial oath, sat and heard an appeal against it and
reversed it orders against Kanu.
Justice Tsoho had on February 19, heard the
application brought before the court by the
prosecution.
The Nigerian government through the DSS had
applied to the court to seek a secret trial of Kanu
among other things, where the government’s
witnesses can testify and give evidence against the
three defendants – Nnamdi Kanu, Benjamin
Madubugwu and David Nwauwisi – by wearing a
mask or hiding behind a screen/curtain.
This way nobody would know who they are or
where they come from.The substance of the DSS
appeal is to allow the court conduct a secret trial
for the accused persons.
Upon hearing the arguments from the government’s
prosecution team and the defence counsel Judge
Tsoho ruled that the trial will not be in secret.
The matter was quickly adjourned sought deals with
secret to March 7, 8, 9 and 10 for commencement
of full trial by the consent of the parties involved.
At this point the public thought the trial will now be
held in the open with witnesses coming to testify
without a facial mask or hiding behind the screen.
In the copy of the court ruling obtained, the order
made by Judge Tsoho reads: “It is noteworthy that
both parties sought to make a case as to the
demeanour of witnesses during trial.
There is no gainsaying that the demeanour of
witnesses is very crucial in judicial proceedings and
it often helps in the evaluation of evidence.
“The Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary
sixth edition defines demeanor as – the way
that somebody looks or behaves. The looks
of a person (facial looks) undoubtedly
constitute a vital aspect of demeanor.
“Therefore in a trial, the facial appearances or
expression convey or reveal more about a
witness than behavioral attitude.
I therefore respectfully agree with the
submission of Chief Muoma SAN, that
demeanor is very important in trial
proceedings and the demeanour of witnesses
is better observed from their direct faces than
behind masks.”
Regarding the fear expressed by the government’s
prosecution team, Kanu has gathered immense
support especially from Nigerians from the South
East and the international community.
Judge Tsoho his ruling on this very issue said: “One
of the main grounds for this application is that the
witnesses fear for their safety and that they have
been receiving threatening calls. There has been
no elaboration on this.
“The supporting affidavit blandly mentioned
the fear of possible attack in its paragraph
4(e).”It is paragraph 4(b) and (c) of the
further affidavit that has disclosed that the
witnesses have complained of receiving
threatening calls and that their lives along
with those of their families are in danger.
“If the witnesses are not protected as sought
by the applicant (DSS), it is my respectful
view that sufficient particulars have not been
furnished in that regard.
“In any event, I hold the humble opinion that
the state which is prosecuting the
respondents has all the means and capability
to protect the witnesses,” the judge ruled.
However, upon resumption, of hearing on March 7
when Kanu with his team of counsels appeared
before the court for commencement of the open
trial as Judge Tsoho ordered, the prosecuting team
verbally-not by written application as is normally the
case – informed the court that the witnesses have
refused to testify.
The prosecuting team said the witnesses have said
that unless the judge modifies the order he made
earlier by to allow the witnesses testify secretly,
they would not appear before the court.
The prosecution said that the government would not
proceed with the case unless the witnesses are
granted the use of a mask or allowed to testify from
behind a screen.
This “mere” oral application to revert back to
secret trial was granted by Judge Tsoho despite
stiff objection by the defense team led by Chuks
Muoma, a senior advocate of Nigeria.
Meanwhile, it can be deduced from the charges
against him that no guns were found on him.Thus
arguments by several senior counsels on how he
could be charged with treasonable felony without
being in possession of guns or weapons.
Also, senior lawyers have argued that treasonable
felony as with the case of Kanu is a violent attempt
to overthrow the President Muhammadu Buhari-led
administration, which cannot be committed by one
person.
Nnamdi Kanu is currently facing trial on a three
count charge of treasonable felony, management of
an unlawful society and concealing goods in a
container.
Kanu was arrested by operatives of the DSS in
Lagos upon his arrival from the United Kingdom on
October 14, 2015.


https://www.naij.com/981903-biafra-agitation-judge-allegedly-commits-terrible-blunder-on-kanus-case-photos.html?source=index_main