They were re-arraigned yesterday (Friday, September 27)
The re-arraignment, initiated by the Inspector-General of Police, involved an eight-count amended charge, presented by prosecution counsel Simon Lough, SAN, before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
It would be recalled that the 10 protesters were arrested in various cities—Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Sokoto, and Gombe—during the 10-day protest, which escalated into violence and resulted in casualties.
Initially arraigned on September 2, they faced six counts and pleaded not guilty. The judge granted each defendant bail of N10 million on September 11, with one surety in the same amount.
At yesterday’s hearing, Mr. Lough applied to replace the original charges with amended ones, adding Daniel Akande as the 11th defendant.
Akande, a member of the Solidarity Network for Workers’ Rights, had been arrested on September 1 in Abuja during a church service. After the new charges were read, all defendants, including Akande, pleaded not guilty.
Akande’s lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, requested lenient bail terms for his client, while the other defense attorneys sought to maintain the previous bail conditions for their clients.
Justice Nwite granted Akande bail under the same conditions: N10 million with one surety, surrendering his international passport, and ensuring the surety resided within the court’s jurisdiction.
Abubakar Marshal, counsel for the first and second defendants, opposed the amendment, arguing it violated Section 216 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
He contended that the prosecution could not unilaterally amend charges without the court’s approval and pointed out that the prosecution had not provided the necessary evidence and witness lists for the defense.
Marshal further stated that, without the full evidence, including witness testimonies, the procedure was invalid.
He also requested a bail variation for the third, fourth, and tenth defendants, citing difficulties in meeting the bail terms for these individuals.
Lough, however, disagreed, arguing that there were no specific procedural requirements for amending charges. He also noted that investigations were ongoing and additional evidence could still be presented under ACJA provisions.
After considering both sides, Justice Nwite permitted the prosecution to proceed with the amended charges, allowing the defense to raise any objections later.
The case was adjourned to October 4 for a decision on the bail variation request and set for trial on November 11
