Nnamdi Kanu to Court: Dismiss Charges Against Me
The leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has approached the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court which retained seven counts charges against him.
Kanu was accused of various offences in the 15 counts, including treasonable felony and terrorism, offences he allegedly committed in the course of his separatist campaigns.
But the judge, Binta Nyako, struck out eight of the charges in her ruling on Mr Kanu’s preliminary objection challenging the validity of the charges.
Mrs Nyako ruled that Counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 were incompetent for not disclosing any valid offences against the defendant.
“In this instant preliminary objection application, I have read the counts and counts 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 have not disclosed any offence,” Mrs Nyako said.
She, however, ruled that Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,13 and 15 disclosed valid charges against Mr Kanu.
She asked the prosecution to proceed to trial on the remaining seven charges, ordering the prosecuting lawyer, Shuaibu Labaran, to file a fresh proof of evidence before May 18, the next hearing date.
However, dissatisfied with the ruling, Kanu has filed an appeal before the appellate court wherein he asking for the setting aside in its entirety, the ruling/final decision of the learned trial court, retaining counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 of the amended charge.
“An order of this Honourable court upon granting relief a above, dismissing the remaining counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 and, accordingly discharging the appellant on those counts.
“An order of this Honourable court terminating the entire charge and discharging the appellant.
In the notice of appeal filed by Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Ejiofor, said the the trial Judge erred in law by failing to “consider, make finding of facts and accordingly pronounce on issue one raised for the trial court’s determination, relating to the extraordinary rendition of the appellant, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
Kanu had in the application before the trial court maintained that the charge against him was legally defective.
He had argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him on the strength of an incompetent charge.
Ozekhome had told the court that his client was “unlawfully, brutally and extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya without his consent”.
He had argued that since some of the allegations leveled against Kanu, were purportedly committed outside the country, the court, therefore, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the charge.
“The charges appears to give this court a global jurisdiction over offences that were allegedly committed by the defendant, without specifying the location or date the said offences were committed”, he had said.
But the prosecution counsel, Shuaibu Labaran, had prayed the court to strike out Kanu’s application and order the prosecution to open its defence.
He argued that the application would touch the substance of the case that is yet to be heard.