Court denies bail to five suspects over Rivers assembly fire

A federal high court in Abuja has refused to grant bail to five persons accused of invading, vandalising and burning a section of the Rivers state house of assembly complex.

The suspects — Chime Ezebalike, Prince Oladele, Kenneth Kpasa, Osiga Donald and Ochueja Thankgod — were arraigned on a seven-count terrorism charge on January 25.

On October 29, 2023, fire gutted a section of the assembly complex and the main chamber, amid plans to initiate impeachment proceedings against Siminalayi Fubara, governor of Rivers.

The suspects are accused of arson, and of killing a police superintendent, Bako Agbashim, and five police informants, in Ahoada. 

The police informants alleged to have been killed were Charles Osu, Ogbonna Eja, Idaowuka Felix, Paul Chibuogu and Saturday Edi.

The federal government also accused them of using various cult groups, including Supreme Viking Confraternity, Degbam, Iceland and Greenland to unleash mayhem on the people of the state. 

Upon arraignment, the defendants pleaded not guilty and were remanded in prison pending ruling on their bail application.

While opposing the bail applications, Simon Lough, police lawyer, argued that the defendants did not establish exceptional circumstances to warrant their release on bail. 

Police contended that the charge against the defendants contained capital offences. 

Rather, Lough prayed the court to order an accelerated trial of the defendants.

In her ruling on Monday, Bolaji Olajuwon, presiding judge, agreed with the prosecution and dismissed the defendants’ request for bail.

The judge also refused an application by two of the defendants, Ezebalike and Oladele, challenging the competence of the charge.

The two defendants had submitted that the IGP lacked the locus standi to institute the action against them. 

They prayed the court to strike out the charge for constituting an abuse of the judicial process. 

Citing sections 3 and 74 of the Terrorism Prevention & Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022, the defendants claimed that only the attorney-general of the federation (AGF) was empowered to institute such action against anyone. 

They also said security agencies like the police would only be responsible for the gathering of intelligence and investigation of such related cases.

In her ruling, the judge held that in line with provisions of section 174 of the TPPA 2022, the power to institute a criminal proceeding was not exclusively vested in the AGF.

The court held that the charge was competent, adding that the police have the statutory powers to prosecute the defendants.