₦airaland Forum

mcquin:
The discretion of a judge must be judicially and judiciously deployed. A judge cannot unreasonably withhold deploying such discretion to meet the ends of justice. I had earlier submitted that courts are bound to consider all defence of an Accused, considering his rights are on trial. Against that backdrop, give me a reason why the His Lordship will deny an Accused right to supboen a witness.

The much I know, the Accused fill relevant form, it is signed by the judge and served on the witness to be called.

What is the relevance of a current Governor of Lagos State testimony as a witness in Nnamdi Kanu's case?

He never met Sanwo Olu, they have never had any dealings so why request the judge to subpoena him? Especially since I am so sure Sanwo will not come as a witness for him willingly.

Take a look at his list of witness and see how ridiculous Nnamdi Kanu is looking.

It is laughable.

babajero:
in this case the judge have no option because this is a high profile case.

The judge is not to be influenced by who or whatever you, Nnamdi Kanu or anyone is.

Who cares about your profile in court when justice is at stake.

shortgun:
I assume you don't know by this stage of the trial, the case has moved far beyond technicalities. The prosecution has presented its witnesses, completed cross-examinations and formally closed its case. Nnamdi Kanu has consistently appeared in court, following the proceedings closely, making observations and taking notes. At this point, the only business before the court is for the defence to open its case or make a no-case submission.

Any attempt to raise new objections or procedural technicalities would be deemed an abuse of court process and will not be entertained.
From my observation, Kanu appears confident and seems to be positioning himself to personally claim credit for what may already look like a favourable outcome.

I don't see the relevance of your question if I've been a witness in court before to this discussion

Are you saying the prosecutor can't cross examine the witness?

The prosecution closed their case because Nnamdi Kanu and his team held on to no case submission and so the prosecutor proceeded to close their case.

However, the judge ruled against Nnamdi Kanu and his legal counsel's no case submission and ruled that Nnamdi Kanu must open his case.

That has automatically reopened the the closure of the prosecution counsel's case. That has opened the witness that Nnamdi Kanu presents in court to cross examination.

This is in the interest of fairness and justice and that is often paramount in the court of law.

My question is relevant to the extent that you seen to exhibit little knowledge on practical procedures and practices on cases in court

pembisco:
The compellability of a witness refers to the power to force a competent witness to testify even if it's against their will.

Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor. This right includes both the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary.

Which sixth amendment do you refer?

I thought sixth amendment is peculiar to USA. The sixth amendment is alien to Nigerian law!

Can you be realistic please.

Goo0dHardDick:
That some of his legal teams withdraw doesn't mean he has no lawyers. His lawyers can do that. Besides he has a whole team of SANs

You are not up to date, get your information correctly.

All the SANs on his defense team withdrew from his case and made it official in court.

He had to speak for himself in the court this week. If he has a lawyer on that day, that lawyer would be speaking for him.

If you see any SAN or lawyer representing Nnamdi Kanu on the next trial date, they would be new legal counsel.

Goo0dHardDick:
Dude you don't know anything yet. Those witnesses will be forced to appear on court wether they like it or not. They're called complied witnesses

They can only be forced to appear in court with a subpoena and a subpoena is at the discretion of the judge subject to your legal counsel being able to convince the judge to order a subpoena on the witness.

You can't violate the right of the witness to a willful testimony, where the potential witness isn't willing to testify.

shortgun:
Like I said before, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand the law, including criminal law. The constitution is written in formal legal English language and every word is carefully chosen to avoid ambiguity. So, I don't see any reason why a man who fully understands that his self representation carries serious consequences will want to jeopardize his chances. On procedure, I agree he will make mistakes because he's not a trained legal person, typically the judge will provide guidance in that direction to ensure fair hearing.

The judge doesn't owe a defendant or prosecutor any guidance in court.

That is why there are lawyers and if you don't have the fund to employ a lawyer. There are state funded lawyers that can render the service to you, at little or no cost, but if you insist on representing yourself in court before the judge, whatever mistakes you make is your doing and can be used against you in court by the judge, especially where the prosecutor or opposing legal council insists on the technicality of the case as it progresses.

Nnamdi Kanu is in a mess and he is digging in on the mess.

Have you ever been in court as an accused before? Have you been tried in court before or been a cross examined witness to a case in court?

Franking:
What you don't know is whether disengaging them was their idea. You clearly don't know what transpired, so, we'll just wait and see after all, according to you, he's digging a hole for himself.

We will see

shortgun:
How?
We really need to abandon this mindset that only lawyers should be knowledgeable about legal matters. Kanu is a remarkably intelligent man with a deep understanding of the Constitution. I’ve heard him quote relevant sections and reference decided cases with confidence. While he may not always get the procedures right, judges generally ensure that self-represented defendants understand the charges, follow the process in simple terms and are not disadvantaged by their lack of legal training.

Defendants like him, who choose to appear pro se, deserve commendation for their courage. In my view, every Nigerian should acquaint themselves with the Constitution, it’s the only path to true civic awareness and sustainable national development.

This is a serious case against Nnamdi Kanu. The sentence could be severe so he needs learned council and experienced lawyers to represent him.

Being intelligent, as you describe Nnamdi Kanu, is completely different from the understanding and practice of law.

What does Kanu know about criminal laws?

mcquin:
Though not on trial, check the Evidence Act for “relevance.” I’m not close to the Act now, would have shown you. Facts which though not in issue are connected, would be relevant. There’s a section more on the point that I can’t reference off hand now.

Again, the court is bound to consider all defense’s available to an Accused no matter how unreasonable it may sound.

Yes, but a Judge is not bound to issue a subpoena on a witness except when convinced to do so.

Being a witness is willingly done.

Franking:
And your IQ is higher than Kanu's, right? You really believe Kanu doesn't know what he's doing......calm down na let's see what happens as the case unfolds.

Nnamdi Kanu is being stupid. He is obviously delusional.

Is Nnamdi Kanu smarter than the several SAN lawyers that he disengaged? What does Nnamdi Kanu know about law and legal counsel or representation in court?

He digging a hole for himself.

nedekid:
Oga once you are subpoenaed as a witness it is not a choice for you to come or not, it is a must.

"If a subpoenaed witness refuses to testify, the court can issue a warrant for their arrest to compel their testimony and may find them in contempt of court, leading to punishment like jail time. While witnesses have grounds to try and have a subpoena set aside, a valid subpoena can still be legally enforced, and the court can order them to testify. Refusing to testify after a court order can be a serious offense, and once compelled, the witness must still testify truthfully to avoid charges for false testimony "

The judge can only issue a subpoena on a witness when he is convinced by your legal team that the evidence of the witness is necessary, critical and substances the case or arguments of the defendant.

The witness is not on trial and their decision to come as witness is willingly done except where subpoena is involved

Subpoena doesn't just happen, the judge would have to order it provided your legal counsel is able to convince the judge of the relevance and importance of the witness testimony in court.

If judge is not convinced, then the witness will not be on subpoena. It will be up to your legal team to approach the witness and appeal to the witness to come and testify in court.

babajero:
they will subpoenaed to appear in court.

The judge can only issue a subpoena when he is convinced by your legal team that the evidence of the witness is necessary, critical and substances the case or arguments of the defendant.

wyt:
Should any of them come, he will mess them with questions partening to what they have said in the past which could be be more weighter than offence the state is holding him against. And that will expose the judiciary and the state. And if they fail to come, he will tell the world what they have said in the past and put it to judiciary that the state is bias and the world will hear and see the country as country wirh failed judiciary system and that will impact the next election.
I am sure the dust will waken the presidency

Kanu would only be messing himself up in the course of the trial if all these people come into the witness stand.

You should be listing witness that can help your cass when you are accused, not the ones you don't know if their testimony would even worsen your case.

givedemwotowoto:
FG can withdraw from the case. Simple as ABC

No, FB mist not withdraw from the case. This country will not be intimidated by you, the east people or Nnamdi Kanu or anyone to dump legitimate cases in court against accused criminals.

The FG will be setting a bad precedent. We shall see Nnamdi Kanu case through in court even up till the Supreme Court, if need be.

shortgun:
Yes they can be forced to come . That's why they are listed as compellable witnesses...a compellable witnesses will be forced to come to court and give testimony.

That is where the court issues a subpoena on that witness that you listed as compellable.

Your legal team first have to convince the court that the witness testimony is fundamental and critical and necessary to buttress the defense council's and defendant's case.

I wonder how he will convince the judge on that?

shortgun:
That's very strategic move from Kanu. I can already foresee how things will unfold once Buratai takes the witness stand as Nnamdi Kanu cross examines him.

Kanu: Did you order the military to invade my house in Umuahia, killing my father and 25 other innocent people?

Buratai: No, I did not.

Kanu: Then who gave the order and were those men under your command?

Buratai: The people who might have invaded your house were not officers or soldiers of the Nigerian Army under my command.

Kanu: My Lord, the witness has just confirmed before this Honourable Court that there were active armed men operating in the Southeast during his tenure as Chief of Army Staff who were not under his command and these men cannot be linked to IPOB since it would make no sense for IPOB to attack the home of its own leader and kill his father along with 25 others. My Lord this revelation undermines the prosecution’s claim that IPOB was behind every act of violence at the time, it weakens the prosecutions claim that IPOB carried out the attacks they claim.

It will be a major disaster for Nnamdi Kanu to attempt to defend himself without legal counsel. It is a stupid move that can be devastating for him.

ayoncox:
It is not, it's a smart move. I would have explained but do your research, let me give you hint, they all know about the importation of foreign bandits to destabilize the country and he was shouting about it that Igbos should harm themselves against it. A party are officials that know about it the other party told their people to resist attacks by picking up guns , eg TY DANJUMA so he is indirectly implicating them for his freedom

What if they refuse to testify as witness in his case?

IJAYA001:
Now I believed this man need serious medical attention ASAP.

Honestly, Nnamdi Kanu is sick psychologically.

Little wonder his SAN lawyers walked away and disassociated from the case.

givedemwotowoto:
FG should close this case and stop harassing and pushing people to the wall.

No FB is pushing you to the wall Kanu should defend himself.

Boomyvig:
Imagine the excuse ( low level officers smuggled in the names).
And those officers don’t have names and why are they not arrested for investigation to identify who they are working for ?

The freedom of this country is near. The old oligarch generation era will soon be over.

This era belongs to the Genzs who question a lot and what even gives them that much power is the support of technology that your lost generation of oligarch has zero understanding of.

Enjoy your nepotism and corrupt filled hateful agenda while it last. Useless leaders. Thinking they are speaking to animals.

I honestly think the federal government is just trying to save face and do damage control.

The whole story about the presidential pardon is embarrassing, frivolous and provoking.

It communicates that the federal government under Tinubu is insensitive and less caring about crime fighting.

The Minister of Justice is trying to exonerate himself even when the article say the Presidential Advisory Committee which he (Minister of Justice) chairs compiled the list and sent to the Council of State for approval. To the extent that the approval of the council of state was given.

This is an indictment on the office of the minister of justice. Was the minister or ministry bribed, perverted or compromised to have names of convicted Drug Barrons, Kidnappers, Illegal Fire Arms Dealers and Husband Killer (Someone who deliberately committed homicide and murdered her husband in cold blood - stabbed him multiple times while he was trying to sleep defenseless - what a wicked and premeditated way to kill a human who is the father of your kids). She was sentenced to death and some irresponsible officers and federal government still left her in prison till date for over 4 years without executing the death sentence judgement. So they were actually strategizing over the years to get her released.

As much as I avoid to irresponsibly criticize President Tinubu's government. I could not but pick up some issues with the government and this is one annoying and clear issue of misrule, disrespect of the law and insult to the sensitivity of the citizens.

Why do we have a justice system then? What is the essence of law if some will violate the law and get away with it even in cases where resources have been spent to prosecute them and sentence them, some ridiculous political government will wake up tomorrow and grant senseless presidential or governors clemency to them. Do you know how many officers died or risked their lives to apprehend these criminals and get them to face Justice?

If the effort is truly aimed at decongesting the Correctional Facilities, it is public knowledge that the prison compromises about 50℅ of people awaiting trial for offenses that are even minor or less severe compared to the criminals that the president is trying to grant pardon.

This makes me feel sick.

This presidential pardons got me really pissed with President Tinubu.

I can imagine the kind of society Tinubu is trying to develop

OracleJay411:
On this, Atiku is somewhat right, after seeing the list and the criminal offences of some of the people pardoned, Tinubu goofed. Kidnappers, Murderers, Drug Dealers. HELL NO.

Honestly, I was embarrassed that the president could do that. Clemency for drug barons, man/husband killer, kidnappers efc

madridguy:
I am very sure President Tinubu didn't go through the list before granting majority of them presidential pardon.

Many of the victims families will feel so bad about the action of the president.

Especially the victims (family of the deceased husband) of the man/husband killer.

A man killer is on the loose now, courtesy President Tinubu.

NOETHNICITY:
So a little child wearing hijab which is a constitutionally protected right is imposition of religious.
Later you will say a child forcefully converted you.

Anyone who is a scared of the sight of a little child wearing the hijab is free to relocate to his village.

A little child wearing Hijab to school where the school has a uniform dress rule that doesn't include Hijab.
- That is the challenge.

Who cares if your little child wears hijab at home, mosque, outings or islamic schools?

Would you allow me to enter your mosque with my shoes and carry a chair to sit among you during your sermon in mosque? Especially since the Constitution of Nigeria allows me to dress the way I wish and sit, if I like, on a chair

NOETHNICITY:
I already know, I just wanted to know if you have sense?
Okay, let me spoonfeed you once more.

The SC based its judgement on Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution which guarantees freedom of association and religion.

You have no spoon or food yet you want to feed someone else.

You are so perv.erted, disru.ptive and indis.ciplined. So much that you want to impose your relig.ion on every system to compromise and dominate the system.
Bigotry is in yo.ur DNA, little wonder you are Sen.sel.ess

However you forget that the world does not revolve around Is.l.am

esnbrutality:
Smash your head on concrete. You aren't on the thread of Boko Haram overrunning and killing military in the North. Na Nnamdi Kanu be your issue. Nonsense

As e dey sweet us........

NOETHNICITY:
So what was the ground upon which the SC base their judgement between Lagos state government and MSA?
What was the bases?

You dey ask me?

Are you not "Mr Most Intelligent" again.

You should know now. You brought the purported case up now.

NOETHNICITY:
So according to your educational background, the SC must sit and determine the case of Hijab in all 37states of the Federation?

What a brilliant kid you are

Mr "level of education"

As long as the supreme Court ruling you refer didn't specify the entire country and specifically addressed the case between Lagos State government, the school and your Muslim association.

Other states can explore the lacuna in the judgement and claim that it doesn't affect them until a judgement is made by extension to cover all states and FCT of the federation.

NOETHNICITY:
It is the teacher who doesn’t want it that will move on.
This particular school is a FG school run with tax payers money. And if the country’s SC rules that kids can wear the hijab, who is the principal to decide against that?

Principal or teachers can't make such decisions solely. It must be the decision of the management of the school, most likely the Federal Government.

If you insist on the school and your child goes back to the school with hijab and the school still kicks her out.

Then go to Court since you want to dwell on it

Simple

NOETHNICITY:
You finally admit that there was a SC ruling on the issue in Lagos state. At least we are making progress

You can't force the culture of hijab on schools. You are free to take your children to Muslim schools or schools where it is allowed.

If it is not allowed in a school, move on. Don't impose yourself or religion on them.

The primary goal of school is academics, your religion is secondary in school.