…Adjourns to October 28
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, warned the defence lawyers against delay in the trial of four suspects who allegedly kidnapped and killed an operative of the Department of State Services (DSS), late Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.
The trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, gave the warning after Kelvin Ekwe and Geoffrey Uwadiegu, who appeared for the defendants, expressed unreadiness to commence trial and sought an application for adjournment.
The suspects, Michael Okafor, a.k.a Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, a.k.a Ability were arraigned before Justice Abdulmalik on September 28, 2026, on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and kidnapping.
The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and were involved in the abduction of Owoh, while he was travelling from Port Harcourt in Rivers to Awka in Anambra.
They were further accused of taking the operative hostage and causing his death in the course of the alleged criminal operation.
The suspects were also accused of belonging to the proscribed IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), as well as involvement in activities allegedly linked to terrorism.
In addition, the prosecution alleged that the suspects were involved in the unlawful possession of firearms, including AK-47 and pump-action rifles, in connection with the alleged offences.
The charges followed investigations into the circumstances surrounding the abduction and killing of the officer and the alleged activities of the defendants.
When the case was called, Munirat Oladunjoye, who represented the prosecution, informed the court that the matter was fixed for trial following the defendants’ denial of the allegations.
Oladunjoye however, told the court that the prosecution had an application to shield the identity of their witnesses pursuant to Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 and therefore prayed the court for an order to grant permission to mask the witnesses and not to reveal their names.
But, lawyer to the 1st and 2nd defendants, Kelvin Ekwe, opposed the oral application moved by Oladunjoye, arguing that the application was uncalled for and therefore submitted that from the proof of evidence served on them, only a witness was listed as DSS investigation officer.
Ekwe said there was no evidence that if the witnesses are not masked, it will prejudice the prosecution’s case, stressing that the application should be formally filed for them to respond appropriately and to guard against ambush.
At this stage, Justice Abdulmalik asked Ekwe to cite any law to back his argument that the prosecution must file a formal application to make such request.
Responding, the lawyer said he relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution which was quickly countered Oladunjoye.
In a short ruling, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the DSS lawyer’s submission and held that in the light that the case being a terrorism matter, it would not serve the interest of justice to expose the identity of the witnesses in the case.
Justice Abdulmalik, who directed the trial to commence and the witness to be co-named as “AB”, directed that anyone who runs foul of Section 232(5) of ACJA will be liable to one year jail term.
Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, counsel to the 3rd and 4th defendants, informed the court that he was coming into the matter for the first, thus would need more time to study the case file.
Ekwe also told the court that he was just served with the video evidence by the prosecution, insisting that he was not ready to go on with the trial.
The prosecution lawyer responded that though Ekwe was just being served with the video evidence, the video clip would not be used in today’s trial and therefore prayed the court to allow the matter to proceed.
Oladunjoye argued that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 caused the case to be adjourned.
But, dissatisfied, Ekwe and Uwadiegwu stood up at the same time to address the court on why the matter should be adjourned.
However, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly behaviour in her court, saying; “I run my court in line with international best practice, and that is why people say I am strict. So, when I run my court, there should be 99.9 per cent compliant according to international best practice”.
Justice Abdulmalik further said that she wouldn’t have listed the case for hearing because there were many pre-election cases in the docket of the court.
She stated that she had at least nine judgments to write in respect of pre-election matters which must be delivered before November 9, 2026, adding that she saw the case as very crucial and which should be determined expeditiously.
Having listened to the parties, Justice Abdulmalik agreed to give a short adjournment, but warned against any act that could delay the trial.
The judge accordingly adjourned the case until October 28, at the instance of the two defence lawyers.
