The Federal Government on Friday re-arraigned 10 persons arrested in connection with #EndBadGovernance protest organised between August 1 and August 10 on alleged treasonable felony.
The Federal Government, through the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, re-arraigned them on eight-count amended charge following an application by the prosecution counsel, Simon Lough, SAN, before Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The 10 protesters were arrested in Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Sokoto and Gombe states over the 10-day protest which resulted in violence and killings in parts of the country.
The 10 protesters were arraigned on September 2 before Justice Nwite on a six-count charge.
They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against them.
The judge admitted them to N10 million bail each on September 11 with one surety in like sum.
Upon resumed hearing on Friday, Mr Lough, in his application, sought to substitute the earlier charge with the amended one which included Daniel Akande as 11th defendant.
Mr Akande, a member of the Solidarity Network for Workers’ Rights, was arrested on September 1 in Abuja during a church service.
After the fresh counts were read to the defendants, they pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Mr Akande (11th defendant)’s lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, prayed the court to admit his client to bail on a liberal terms, while other defendants’ lawyers urged the court to allow their clients to continue with earlier bail granted them.
The judge agreed with Mr Adeyanju and admitted Mr Akande to N10 million bail with one surety in like sum.
He also held that the defendant must submit his passport to the court registry.
He said the surety must swear to an affidavit of means and must reside within the jurisdiction of the court.
Justice Nwite also granted the prayers of the other defence counsel.
Earlier, counsel to the 1st and 2nd defendants, Abubakar Marshal, opposed the application by Mr Lough for the amended charge to be read to the defendants.
Mr Marshal argued that the charge was not in line with Section 216 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
He submitted that the prosecution cannot unilaterally amend the charge without the leave and permission of the court.
He also told the court that the prosecution had not served the parties with the proof of evidence which the defendants would rely on.
He said in the course of previous proceedings, they did apply and emphasised the need for the prosecution to furnish them with the proof of evidence to enable the defendants prepare for their trial.
Mr Marshal further stated that the prosecution must furnish them with the list of every witness they intend to rely on.
He said, “The written testimonies of all witnesses and all the documents must be provided. Any procedure contrary to this invalidates the entire procedure.’’
The lawyer also hinted at the application pending before the court seeking variation of bail for 3rd, 4th and 10th defendants respectively in line with Section 396 of ACJA.
He informed the court that they had been able to perfect the bail conditions for seven out of the 10 defendants.
He therefore prayed the court to vary the bail terms for the remaining three defendants in the interest of justice.
Lawyer to the 4th defendant, Anthony Itedjere, aligned with Mr Marshal’s argument
But Mr Lough disagreed with them.
The senior lawyer argued that there was no specific mode on how an application for amendment of charge can be moved.
On the service of the proof of evidence, he said investigation is a continued process until judgment is delivered.
He argued that the ACJA made provision for additional proof of evidence and would be served on the parties involved in the case.
He said there was no provision in the ACJA that regulates criminal proceedings to include other defendants who are at large in the charge.
Justice Nwite after listening to submissions of the parties gave the prosecution go-ahead to read the amended charge to the defendants for them to take their plea.
He also urged the defence counsel to raise their objections if there were any defects at the appropriate time.
The matter was adjourned until October 4 for ruling on the bail variation for 3rd, 4th and 10th defendants and fixed November 11 for trial.
