Editor's Note: 
This pen and ink illustration of course 
has its history. It was composed for and 
published in the Daily Times, Lagos, in 
1989. 
Years later, the subject of the drawing. 
Ken, walked past the desk of the artist, 
Yomi Ola, and caught a glimpse of the 
work. Impressed, Ken asked if he could 
append his signature on it, and Ola 
obliged. Here we publish the 
autographed version for the first time. 
From the 
diary of a 
Judicial Reporter 
Muyiwa 
Adekeye 
„STENT CLOUD OF THE POUTICAL HOVERED AROUND THE TRIAL 
of Ken Saro-Wiwa and 14 of his Ogoni compatriots last year. It 
was there before the gruesome events of 21 May 1994 that 
triggered the trials. And the political cloud was thickened by 
government actions all through. 
One such defining action was the press conference arranged by Rivers State 
administrator Dauda Komo, one day after four prominent Ogonis were murdered. In 
what sounded like judgement before trial, the lieutenant-colonel blamed the killings on 
African Quarterly 
on the Arts 
V,l!IN03
the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni 
People (MOSOP), the mainstream Ogoni 
movement led by Ken, and its youth wing, 
•he National Youth Council of the Ogoni 
People (NYCOP). Having alleged them 
culpable, Komo ordered the arrest of the 
executive members of both groups. Ken - 
a writer, environmentalist and minority 
rights campaigner was quickly detained. 
The people arrested in the days that 
followed 21 May 1994 lingered in 
detention until the trial formally opened on 
6 February 1995. Government had spent 
the intervening months conducting 
investigations and preparing a case; a 
rather curious twist considering the selfassured 
mien that the state administrator, 
Dauda Komo adopted in denouncing the 
guilty following the murders of Albert 
Badeyi, Edward Kobani, Samuel Orege 
and Theophilus Orage. 
Policy twists were also a feature of 
the intervening months. Adokiye 
Amaesimaka, the attorney-general of 
Rivers State for instance argued in August 
1994 that the trial would be conducted by 
the state government since the alleged 
crimes were committed within Rivers State. 
Not long after, Komo announced that with 
investigations almost completed, the state 
government was awaiting a decision by 
the Federal Government. 
The reason for this incoherence 
between a state's chief executive and his 
chief legal adviser was a little puzzling. 
But perhaps it did not matter too much in 
the long run. Even if the state government 
had retained the initiative on the case, Ken 
might still have faced a Civil Disturbances 
Special Tribunal for Rivers State. The edict 
empowered the tribunal to impose the 
death penalty and MOSOP challenged it 
in court perceiving that it was a legal 
noose waiting only to be tightened around 
its own neck. 
As it were, the Federal Government 
took over the case in November 1 994 and 
appointed a Civil Disturbances Special 
Tribunal to handle it- Legal muscle for this 
move was provided by Decree 2 of 1987 
which empowers the Head of State to 
create a special tribunal, independent of 
the normal judicial system, to try cases 
arising from civil riots. One provision of 
African Quarterly 
on the Ant 
Vol. 11 NO i 
Gani 
proposed a two 
week adjournment 
to enable 
the defence study 
the case, Umeadi 
opposed it 
suggesting 
instead that one 
week would do. 
the decree is that there must be a serving 
member of the Armed Forces on the 
tribunal. The decree also abolished the 
right of appeal to a superior court, and 
invested in the military authorities the 
power to confirm or reject sentences g iven 
by the tribunal. 
Such a tribunal was created 
following the ethnic and religious riots that 
swept Kaduna State in 1992. Major- 
General Zamani Lekwot, a former governor 
of Rivers State, and 16 other Katafs were 
sentenced to death by the Okadigbo 
tribunal in the case. 
Thus, there were apprehensions 
when Michael Agbamuche, the federal 
attorney-general, announced that trial 
would start on 16 January, 1995. A threeman 
tribunal had already been sworn-in 
and it was led by Justice Ibrahim Auta, a 
judge of the Federal High Court, Lagos. 
The other members of the tribunal were 
retired Justice Etowu Eyo Arikpo and 
Lieutenant Colonel Hameed Ibrahim AN. 
When 16 January came, the case 
could not start. The prosecutions did not 
appear, although the tribunal chairman, 
Auta, showed up. Justice Arikpo too was 
absent. Not so the defence attorneys led 
by Gani Fawehinmi. When Auta 
announced that trial would not be starting 
that day, Gani requested to be granted 
access to his clients some of whom were 
held in a military camp, the Zamani Lekwot 
Cantonment in Port-Harcourt. Auta 
declined to give such an order because 
the tribunal was not sitting. 
On 6 February 1996, the trial 
opened as five defendants appeared 
before the tribunal to face four counts of 
murder each. There were two sets of 
charges - Ken, his deputy in MOSOP, 
Ledum Mitee and Dr. Barmem Kiobel, a 
former commissioner and academic, were 
charged with having 'counselled and 
procured1 the four murders. John Kpumen 
and Baribor Bera were charged with 
having executed the mandate to murder. 
The prosecution was led by Chief 
Philip Umeadi, a senior advocate 
appointed to handle the case. He was 
assisted by another private attorney, 
Joseph Biodun Daudu. Leading the 
defence was Gani who had with him 
Femi Falana, Fatai Osho, Emmanuel 
Likala, and other lawyers. That first day, 
Gani asked the tribunal to grant the 
accused personsbail, permittheircounsels 
regular access to them and order their 
transfer to prison custody. Only his request 
for access was granted. 
When Gani proposed a two week 
adjournment to enable the defence study 
the case, Umeadi opposed it, suggesting 
instead that one week would do. Gani 
wryly observed that he was asking for 
only two weeks to study a case which 
took Umeadi eight months to prepare. 
The tribunal granted Gani's wish. 
As the lawyers argued inside the 
Rivers State House of Assembly Complex, 
a crowd of Qgonis gathered outside, 
wishing to catch a glimpse of their detained 
leaders. When the tribunal rose and the 
Black Maria conveying the accused 
persons rumbled by, they burst into a 
spontaneous demonstration. Gani 
emerged to address them and shore up 
their spirits. We heard him saying, 'y°u 
have maintained this country as hewers 
of wood and drawers of water. For several 
years, the country has lived on your 
sweat, on your tears, on your blood. 
Now, no more.' The Ogonis took up the 
refrain, shouting 'no more' as enraged 
security men began to disperse them. Mr. 
Bayo Fadugba, a lawyer, had earlier 
announced that he was in court to hold a 
watching brief for Shell on behalf of his 
principal, Mr. O. C. J. Okocha.
As a result of the effontery of the 
Ogonis, the Rivers State Internal Security 
Task Force under the command of Lt. Col. 
(then Major) Paul Okuntimo put in place 
new security measures to forestall the 
possibility of further protests around the 
courtroom. When the trial resumed on 21 
February, the trial venue took a new 
appearance - that of a war-camp. Armed 
soldiers and anti-riot policemen littered 
the approaches to and the premises of the 
Rivers State Secretariat within which the 
trial venue was situated. 
Anyone, including journalists, who 
wanted to observe the proceedings had 
to be accredited at the Police Officers' 
Mess from where buses would convey 
them to the trial venue. The militarised 
atmosphere at the trial venue and the 
accreditation requirement served as 
effective crowd control strategy. But the 
security operatives went a bit too far. 
They demanded that lawyers too be 
accredited; and the defence team refused, 
affirming that the only thing a lawyer 
needed to do to practise his profession is 
to pay practising fees. But fine arguments 
did not protect Femi Falana, a member of 
the defence team, from getting slapped 
and Gani from being manhandled. 
The lawyers still stood their ground 
however, and after some haranguing 
were allowed to enter the trial venue 
without accreditation. K. Z. Dudari, an 
assistant commissioner of police who took 
part in defusing the tension and making 
peace with the lawyers, mumbled a few 
words in Hausa to an uncomprehending 
Gani: Kai, Gani, mai surutu ne (Gani, 
you are a troublemaker). 
When business opened, Gani 
submitted two affidavits sworn to by two 
prosecution witnesses asserting that they 
and other prosecution witnesses had been 
bribed and threatened in order to provide 
incriminating evidence against the 
accused. 
On 13 March 1995, the 
prosecution opened its case by calling its 
first witness, Garrick Barilee Leton, the 
first president of MOSOP. As Umeadi led 
him in evidence, the drift of the 
prosecution's case became clear. The 
prosecution was trying to establish a 
pattern of violence perpetrated by 
organisations allegedly controlled by the 
first accused, Ken Saro-Wiwa. Although 
Leton was president when NYCOP was 
formed, and although he participated in 
NYCOP functions, he insisted that its 
creation was an attempt by Ken to form a 
private army and deviate from MOSOP's 
ideals. After Leton, Prisulla Vikue, a former 
director-general testified along similar 
lines. 
Frustrations faced by the defence 
team in cross-examining these two 
witnesses created the scene for one of the 
epic battles of the trial. The defence 
counsels had only been provided with a 
summary of the evidence to be led by 
each prosecution witness. They felt this 
was not sufficient as it had impeded the 
effective cross-examination of the 
witnesses so far called. They asked for a 
redress leaving the tribunal in no doubt 
that they would withdraw from the case if 
they did not get access to the full statement 
of every prosecution witness. 
The atmosphere reeked of the 
gradual warming up of magma that 
betrays the imminence of a volcanic 
eruption. The defence team reminded the 
tribunal of the defendants' light to fair 
hearing as guaranteed by section 33 of 
the constitution. For them, the denial to 
them of the witnesses' statements 
derogated from that right. 'No matter 
how ingenious an accused person can 
be, he cannot prepare against the 
unknown. It is not a question of magic', 
Gani explained. 
Falana put it more bluntly. In the 
absence of the statements, 'we were put in 
a dark room blindfolded, looking for a pin 
to puncture the prosecution's case'. Gani 
asked the prosecution to be fair. 'Criminal 
procedure is not hide and seek. All cards 
must be on table.' When Joseph Daudu, 
arguing for the prosecution, said that all 
the defence needs the written statements 
for is cross examination and not the 
preparation of the defence, Mitee - who 
was now defending himself- snapped. 'I 
cannot conceive of any defence that does 
not include cross-examination.' 
To strengthen the argument, Falana 
said even in heaven, there is fair hearing. 
He illustrated with the case of Adam who 
was asked to explain himself before he 
was punished. Auta, the tribunal 
chairman, asked if God also took 
explanations from the serpent before 
punishing it? Falana replied that a serpent 
is not a human being. Gani also recalled 
that in 1 989, Chief Rotimi Williams used 
statements submitted by the Lagos State 
attorney-genera! to argue that no case 
had been established against his clients, 
Colonels Halilu Akilu and Kunle Togun 
over the Dele Giwa case. 
It was the height of the defence's 
performance, was they displayed their 
familiarity with the authorities on what the 
law says about the rights of the accused. 
The tribunal agreed with them and ordered 
the prosecution to give the defence 
counsels the written statements of the 
prosecution witnesses. 
Ken Saro-Wiwa believed the trial 
was a charade and his demeanour said 
it all. While legal arguments raged, he 
whiled away the time perusing 
newspapers. He obviously was present in 
the courtroom only physically, Ken was 
convinced he could not get justice and he 
did not intend to promote a contrary 
illusion. He regarded the trial merely as 
an avenue contrived to obtain a 
prearranged guilty verdict. 
The defence counsels eventually 
came around to this view. The occasion 
as provided by the testimony of Alhaji 
Mohammed Kobani, younger brother of 
one of the victims of the horrifying murders 
of 21 May 1994. Kobani was an 
eyewitness to, the riot at Grokoo. He 
appeared with Lt.Col. Komo at the 22 
May 1994 press conference where Komo, 
pronounced MOSOP guilty. At that press 
conference, Alhaji Kobani had narrated 
what he said was the authentic account of 
how the four prominent Ogoni men were 
murdered. The defence saw a chance to 
destroy his credibility by pointing out the 
contradictions between his testimony in 
court, his written statement and his account 
at that press conference. 
When the defence lawyers 
tendered a video recording of the 22 
May 1994 press conference, the tribunal 
refused to admit it in evidence. Then the 
African Quarterly 
on the Am 
V,L1INO3
lawyers said the tribunal should compel 
the government to produce the video in 
court. But the tribunal let the Rivers State 
Government get away with the explanation 
that either notape of the broadcast existed 
or that it had been erased. When this 
explanation did not prompt the tribunal to 
accept the copy provided by the defence, 
the defence team withdrew saying the 
tribunal had shown one pro-government 
bias too many. 
Thus on 22 June 1995, the defence 
lawyers announced their withdrawal. Ken 
agreed with itwholeheartedly, convinced 
that a continuation of the case by the 
lawyers would only accord legitimacy to 
a flawed process. When the tribunal 
appointed lawyers for the accused, Ken 
refused to co-operate with them. The 
prosecution kept on calling witnesses who 
left the witness stand without being crossexamined. 
When the prosecution closed 
its case, Ken's court-appointed lawyer 
made a 'no-case' submission. 
On 13 September 1995, the 
tribunal ruled that Ken, alongside the 
other accused persons, had a case to 
GLENDORA 
REVIEW 
Subscribe Today 
African Quantrly 
""•he Arts 
Vol.1'/ Nil 3 
e illustrated with 
e case of Adam who 
was asked to explain 
himself before he was 
punished. Auta, the 
tribunal chairman, asked 
if God also took 
explanations from the 
serpent before punishing 
it? Falana replied 
that a serpent is not a 
human being. 
answer. The tribunal was not swayed by 
the lawyer's argument that even if the 
prosecution's claim was true that Ken had 
blamed the gentlemen gathered atGrokoo 
on 21 May 1994 for his banishment to 
Port-Harcourt, that did not amount to an 
incitement to kill. The lawyer insisted that 
the claim was not even true, as the 
policemen who escorted Ken back to Port- 
Harcourt did not write that in their 
statement. 
Well, even 
before 31 
October 1995, 
the tribunal's 
verdict was 
obvious. That day 
it found Ken guilty 
and said his 
p u n i s h m e n t 
would be death 
by hanging. The 
sentence was 
pronounced with 
all gravity, but 
j u s t i c e 
unfortunately was 
not seen to have 
been done. 
Part of the 
ammunition that 
was used to assail 
not only the 
verdict, but the 
entire process that 
produced it had 
been provided by 
M i c h a e l 
Birnbaum, a 
British Queen's 
Counsel who came to observe the trial. He 
reported that by denying the accused 
persons both the right of appeal and 
access to ordinary courts, the trial was 
flawed. 'Nothing that I saw or heard in 
Nigeria allayed the grave doubts as to its 
(the tribunal's) legality and fairness' 
Birnbaum later wrote. 
Birnbaum refused to buy 
Agbamuche's explanation that the 
government resorted to using a tribunal to 
ensure a speedy trial. In his rebuttal of 
Agbamuche, Birnbaum quoted Justice 
Augustine Nnamani: 'If speed is the main 
consideration, it would have been better 
to take definite steps to deal with the 
known factors for delay in the courts.1 
Instead, the government elected to furnish 
the tribunal with hi-tech aids like computer 
and automatic recording machines. 
On allegations of bias by the 
tribunal, Birnbaum feltthey were true. And 
he cited two instances. One was that the 
tribunal went ahead to try 15 people 
when the summary of evidence provided 
by the prosecution disclosed no case 
against 1 1 of them. 
Indeed, government, rather than 
the tribunal, determined who would go on 
trial and when. By the Civil Disturbances 
Decree 2 of 1 987, it is the tribunal that 
ought to decide if it is satisfied that a basis 
exists to try an accused person. Yet the 
government decided there must be a trial 
well before passing any information to the 
tribunal. The first date of the trial was filed 
for 16January 1 995. The prosecution did 
not apply to start the trial until 28 January 
1995. 
The second evidence of bias 
Birnbaum noticed involved the use of 
simultaneous trials involving the same 
witnesses and the same summary evidence. 
That raised the danger of placing accused 
persons in double jeopardy. 
It is now history. Even before the full 
record of proceedings had reached them, 
the military authority confirmed the 
sentence and ordered the execution of 
Ken and eight others. What is not so 
obvious is whether the Ogoni debacle 
would eradicate tribunals from Nigeria's 
legal system GR