A Federal High Court in Abuja has cautioned defence lawyers against further delays in the trial of four suspected members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who are accused of kidnapping and killing a Department of State Services (DSS) operative.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the warning on Wednesday after two defence lawyers requested an adjournment, citing the need for more time to prepare for the proceedings.

The defendants are Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, popularly known as Ability.

They were arraigned on September 28, 2026, on a six-count charge involving alleged terrorism, kidnapping and unlawful possession of firearms. All four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and abducted Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh, a DSS operative, while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.

They were further accused of holding the operative hostage and killing him during the alleged operation. The prosecution also accused them of belonging to IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and unlawfully possessing firearms, including an AK-47 rifle and a pump-action gun.

At Wednesday’s hearing, prosecution counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, applied for permission to conceal the identities of prosecution witnesses under Section 232(3)(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

However, Kelvin Ekwe, counsel to the first and second defendants, opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution had not demonstrated how disclosing the witnesses’ identities would prejudice its case.

Ekwe also maintained that the request should have been formally filed to allow the defence to respond and avoid being taken by surprise.

When the judge asked him to identify the legal provision requiring the prosecution to file a formal application, the lawyer relied on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik upheld the prosecution’s request, stating that revealing witnesses’ identities in a terrorism-related case would not serve the interest of justice.

The judge directed that the witness be identified by the code name “AB” and warned that anyone who violated Section 232(5) of the ACJA could face up to one year in prison.

The proceedings were subsequently interrupted by requests for adjournment from the defence.

Geoffrey Uwadiegwu, who represented the third and fourth defendants, told the court that he had only recently taken over the case and needed additional time to study the case file.

Ekwe also said he had just been served video evidence by the prosecution and was not prepared to proceed with the trial.

Oladunjoye acknowledged that the video evidence had only recently been served but argued that it was not scheduled to be used during that day’s proceedings. She urged the court to allow the trial to continue, adding that Ekwe’s absence on October 6 had previously contributed to an adjournment.

As the lawyers attempted to address the court simultaneously, Justice Abdulmalik cautioned them against unruly conduct.

The judge said she expected proceedings in her courtroom to comply with established standards of judicial practice and warned counsel against conduct capable of disrupting the hearing.

She explained that the court had a busy schedule involving several pre-election cases and at least nine judgments that needed to be delivered before November 9.

Despite the pressure on the court’s schedule, Abdulmalik said she considered the terrorism case important and believed it should be determined without unnecessary delay.

After listening to both sides, the judge granted a short adjournment but warned the defence against further actions that could prolong the proceedings.

The case was adjourned until October 28, 2026, for continuation of trial.