Human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong has expressed concern for the embattled leader of the proscribed Indigenous People Of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu after he opted not to open his defense today.
At the resumed proceedings on Monday, Kanu who has opted to defend himself after firing his team of lawyers, said he has gone through his case file and there is no charge against him.
Diaspora Digital Media also reported that Nnamdi Kanu abandoned his plan to call witnesses in his defence.
He informed the court that after reviewing his case-file, he believes the prosecution hasn’t established a case, making it unnecessary to proceed with his defence.
Justice James Omotosho advised Kanu to file a written address and consult criminal law experts, considering the implications of his decision.
The judge adjourned the trial to November 4-6 for the adoption of final written addresses or for Kanu to enter his defence
But reacting to the development in a statement, Barrister Effiong described Nnamdi Kanu’s legal strategy as confusing.
According to him, there are two options that Nnamdi Kanu can explore– either he opens his defence, or he rests his case on the case of the prosecution.
He argued in the statement that Nnamdi Kanu is taking a very risky gamble and the law is firmly settled that a defendant has no obligation to prove or establish his or her innocence.
The statement reads: “Nnamdi Kanu’s legal strategy is confusing at this point.
“The Court had previously overruled his No Case Submission.
“It is no longer open to him to contend that he has no case to answer.
“There are two options that he can explore: either he opens his defence, or he rests his case on the case of the prosecution.
“He has indicated that he no longer intends to open his defence.
“My understanding of the media reports of today’s proceedings is that Kanu believes that the prosecution has not proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.
“If my assessment is wrong, then palpable confusion has ensued.
“He is taking a very risky gamble.
“However, the law is firmly settled that a defendant has no obligation to prove or establish his or her innocence.
“Since this defendant, Kanu, had pleaded not guilty to the charges, the court will now have to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to see whether the elements of the offences charged have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“The fact that Kanu has elected to pursue his case in this manner is not going to be construed as an admission of guilt.
“However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution team would be deemed as unchallenged, save for the evidence elicited under cross examination.
“The court will still have to determine whether on the basis of the admitted evidence, the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof placed on it in law.
“I don’t know who’s advising Kanu, or what his motivation is, but he is taking a very risky decision.”