Mastermind Of Kano Multiple Bomb Attack Re-arraigned

The suspect behind the multiple bomb attack in Kano in 2014, Husseni Ismaila (aka Maitangaran) has been re-arraigned.

Naija News understands that the Department of State Services (DSS) re-arraigned the suspect at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Upon the commencement of the proceedings, the prosecuting counsel, E.A. Aduda, informed the court that the DSS had submitted an amended charge consisting of four counts against the accused.

He then requested the court to read out the charge to the defendant so that he could enter his plea.

The defendant again pleaded not guilty to all four counts, which read in part: “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 prosecution counsel requested that the trial proceed, despite the defendant’s plea of not guilty. However, the defence counsel, Peter Dajang, argued that the trial should not continue due to the prosecution’s violation of a court order.

On December 6, 2021, the court ordered the prosecution to transfer the defendant to the Kuje Correctional Centre to allow for access by his lawyers and family members. The DSS has yet to comply with the order, as the defendant remains in their custody.

Dajang contended that the prosecution did not appeal the order when it was issued and that the court cannot sit on appeal over its own ruling.

Additionally, he argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the prosecution’s application to modify the order, as it was made on December 6, 2021, and the prosecution had only six days to apply for 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,” the defence counsel argued.

The prosecuting counsel, however, told the court that the order was yet to be complied with because he had filed an application praying the court to vary the order.

The judge adjourned the matter till Jan. 25, 2024, to rule on the application to vary the order it made that the defendant be transferred to Kuje. He also fixed Feb. 7, 2024, to continue the substantive matter.