Boko Haram Trial: Sen Ndume Knows Fate, Feb 19

The Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday, reserved February 19 to allow arguments on an application filed by Ali Ndume, praying the court to quash charges of terrorism leveled against him.

Our correspondent reports that Ndume (PDP-Borno) is standing trial for alleged link with the Boko Haram.

The accused, who was billed to open his defence on the allegations upon the closure of evidence by the prosecutor (State Security Service), contended that the SSS failed to establish substantial evidence against him.

Meanwhile, the counsel to the accused, Mr Rickey Tarfa (SAN),  has filed a notice of appeal against two earlier rulings of the court he said were against the interest of his client.

Our correspondent reports that the notice of appeal is meant to challenge the admission of two mobile phones of the applicant.

The second half of the appeal challenges the admission of three DVDs that contained alleged record of communication between the accused and some members of the Boko Haram.

Tarfa argued that Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution barred the court from admitting those materials.

Our correspondent reports that the call log showed that Ndume, communicated with Mohammed Konduga, a terrorist convict, 73 times, within a month.

Tarfa argued that the number of times his client spoke with Konduga was immaterial, adding that no incriminating substance could be linked to him from such communication.

He submitted that Ndume could communicate with the terrorist group based on his membership of the Presidential Committee to restore peace in the North East Zone.

Tarfar further argued that the evidence neither carried the signature of the witness nor any form of identification to show its originality.

He said the evidence lacked the description of the maker and certification to show its source and that “the evidence was a concoction of the prosecutor’’.

Tarfar submitted that the lower court failed to be guided by the provisions of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, which served as a protection against admission of fake computer generated materials.

Justice Gabriel Kolawole, however, refused to consider an application for stay of proceedings filed by the counsel to the accused, describing it as “speculative’’.

Kolawole held that “the date on which the appeal would be heard must be transmitted to the lower court before we can stay proceedings here’’.