The Department of State Services (DSS), Wednesday, in Abuja re-arraigned Husseni Ismaila (aka Maitangaran), the alleged mastermind behind the 2014 multiple bomb attacks in Kano, at the Federal High Court.
Upon calling the case, the prosecuting counsel, Mr. E.A. Aduda, informed the court that the DSS had amended the charge to four counts against the defendant. He requested the court to read the charges to the defendant for his plea.
The defendant entered a plea of not guilty to all four counts, which are partially quoted as follows:
“That you, Husseni Ismaila, alias Maitangaran, a 34-year-old male, professed to be a member of Boko Haram, a terrorist group, therefore contravening provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, and punishable under the same act.”
“That you, Husseni Ismaila, alias Maitangaran, a 34-year-old male in 2014, directly participated in an act of terrorism and made a video message confessing to the crime of bombing the Kano Central Mosque.”
“This led to the deaths of many Nigerians, including police personnel. The act contravened Section 1(2) (8) of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013, and is punishable under the same act.”
The prosecuting counsel requested the court to proceed with the trial following the not-guilty plea of the defendant.
However, the defense counsel, Mr. Peter Dajang, argued that the trial should not proceed because the prosecution had violated a valid court order.
According to Dajang, on December 6, 2021, the court directed the prosecution to transfer the defendant from DSS custody to the Kuje Correctional Centre.
This was intended to allow his lawyers and family members access to him. However, DSS had not complied with the order, and the defendant remained in their custody.
He emphasized that the prosecution didn’t challenge the order when initially issued by the court, asserting that the court cannot review its ruling.
The defense counsel contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the prosecution’s application to modify the order since it was issued on December 6, 2021, and the prosecution had a mere six days to request a modification.
“If the prosecution had intended to make an application to vary, they ought to have done that within time, which is six days.”
“Looking at the application, which is seven months after the order was made, there is no prayer seeking the leave of court to file the application out of time.”
“Also, we submit that an order of court is a final decision of that court. When the order was made, parties were represented.”
“The proper thing to have done was to appeal the decision and not to ask the court to sit on appeal over its decision, moreso that the time for filing an appeal has long passed.”
Nevertheless, the prosecuting counsel informed the court that the order had not been adhered to as he had submitted an application requesting the court to modify the order.
The judge postponed the proceedings until January 25, 2024, to decide on the application to modify the order, which mandated the transfer of the defendant to Kuje.
Additionally, February 7, 2024, has been scheduled for the continuation of the main proceedings.