Dr. Chris Ekong Saga: State Refuses To Produce Accused In Court

Criminal prosecution preferred by the State against Dr. Chris Ekong, currently standing trial in Uyo High Court 5, for alleged implication involving a case of high profile murder, suffered a huge setback, on Thursday 28th April, 2010, when the state failed to produce the accused person in court.

The State had cited “inadequate security” as the leading reason for its failure to produce the said accused person, adding that Dr. Ekong “cannot be escorted to court without heaving security presence”.
Dr. Chris Ekong, Pioneer Commissioner for Economic Development and Chief Economic Adviser (CEA) to the Governor Akpabio led administration of Akwa Ibom State , has been remanded in Uyo Federal Prison since early February this year. He is facing prosecution for an alleged culpability in murder, a criminal case, preferred against him by the Akwa Ibom State Government filled in Suit No HU/10c/2010, titled State Vs Christopher Nyong Ekong and brought before the Court of Honourable Justice Andrew Okon sitting in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State Capital.
A sudden twist, however, began edging into the sensational trial of the University of Uyo Associate Professor of Economics, when the State had earlier dropped an initial criminal charge of conspiracy leveled against him and instead, instituted fresh charges of culpability in an alleged act of murder.
At the first hearing on Thursday 1st April, 2010, when the case was mentioned, a prosecution witness (PW) and self confessed former militant and KKK Cult member, Mr. Ekemini William Ekanem, popularly called “Kemsi”, had confessed to having been arrested in November of last year by men of the Nigeria Police Force, Zone 6, Calabar, Cross River State. He admitted being charged at the time for wandering.
A mild drama had however, developed in the Court, when on cross examination by the defence team, the witness of the prosecution could neither ascertain as to when he wrote his confessional statement nor explain the unusual circumstances, which led to the said statement becoming admissive of a highly incriminating crime such as murder. He had somewhat based it on Police excruciating torture.
Arguing against the position of the State on the absence of Dr. Chris Ekong in Court, a defence counsel to the accused, Sam Ikpo Esq. appearing with others, condemned the latest steps taken by the state to “practically frustrate the trial of the matter”.
He said: “There is a high conspiracy game suspected on the part of the State to frustrate this trial. It is very apparent and quite indicative that the State is not very enthusiastic to prosecute the matter, given its hesitant attitude to do the matter”.

The counsel for the defence further submitted that “Since the liberty and other rights of the accused have been injured as well a denied, it would not serve the cause of justice if the Court were to continue to accept the excuse of the State and further remand the accuse person in custody.
Seeking an explanation from the prosecution as to why the accused person is not produced in Court, his Lordship, Justice Andrew Okon presiding over the matter, was told by lead prosecution counsel C. J. Udo Esq. that the “inability to produce the accused in Court is not unconnected with issues of security”.
Independent investigations had, however, proved otherwise as it was ascertained by our correspondent through impeccable prison sources who spoke on closed identity that the prison authority acted on directives from above.

As at the time of going to press, one, however, could not satisfactorily pin point where the widely condemned directive, emanated from. But scores of Dr. Ekong's loyalists association and family members, who trooped the Court premises in apparent sympathy to what the described as “selected persecution”, were unanimous on their insistence that “justice delayed is justice denied”. Those spoken to decried the seeming undue and unjustifiable tactics adopted by the prosecution in the course of the trial, describing it as crude and in human. They were of the belief that the latest twist witnessed in the trial was politically motivated and feared for the safety and well-being of the accused.

The case has, however, been adjourned to Thursday 13th May, 2010, by consent of both the defence and prosecution parties who were in Court to argue the matter.