Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected major pieces of evidence the Nigerian Government brought forward in its terrorism case against Nnamdi Kanu, a pro-Biafra activist.

The government had submitted statements Kanu made on October 21, 24, and November 4, 2015 during his interrogation by the Department of State Services (DSS). These statements were meant to support the terrorism charges against him.

However, the judge refused to accept these statements and also threw out the video recordings of those interrogation sessions. He said they could not be used as proper evidence in the court.

This decision came after Kanu claimed that some parts of his statements were made under pressure and not by his free will.

To investigate these claims, the court held a special hearing known as a “trial within a trial” to decide if Kanu was truly forced or mistreated during the interrogations.

Justice Omotosho stated that it is the job of the government to prove that Kanu gave the statements voluntarily, without being pressured.

While the court found no strong proof from Kanu showing he was forced, the judge did notice something important — Kanu kept complaining that his lawyer wasn’t with him when the statements were taken.

The judge pointed out that Nigerian law says if someone is arrested without a warrant, any statement they make must be in the presence of their lawyer, a Legal Aid officer, or someone from a civil rights group.

He also explained that video recordings are meant to prove that the statement was made voluntarily and with proper legal help present.

Because no lawyer was there with Kanu during the questioning, the judge said the DSS didn’t follow the law. He stressed that law enforcement must always make sure suspects have legal representation.

Justice Omotosho also reminded everyone that the Nigerian Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to a lawyer.

Even though the video looked calm and didn’t show signs of force, the judge ruled that Kanu’s rights were not fully respected because he didn’t have his lawyer with him.

As a result, both the written statements and the video recordings were declared inadmissible and officially rejected by the court.