On June 19, the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako, ruled against the objection raised by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), concerning the court’s jurisdiction to subject him to trial. Dissatisfied with this decision, Kanu, through his Special Counsel, Chief Aloy Ejimakor, has taken steps to appeal the ruling. On Tuesday, the notice of appeal was filed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
In a statement disclosed to Vanguard, Ejimakor detailed the grounds for the appeal. He emphasized that the objections raised are founded on provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, and other relevant statutes. The Federal Government of Nigeria is the sole respondent in this case and will be served through their counsel, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN.
Kanu has been detained at the Abuja headquarters of the Department of State Services (DSS) since his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in June 2021. The notice of appeal outlines several key issues with the Federal High Court’s ruling and the subsequent grounds for the appeal.
Grounds of the Appeal
The first ground of the appeal argues that the trial judge erred in law and caused a grave miscarriage of justice by stating that any issues Kanu has with the counts of charge retained after the Supreme Court’s decision should be addressed through an appeal. The appeal asserts that Kanu is entitled to raise further preliminary objections to the court’s jurisdiction on grounds not previously addressed. It is contended that suggesting an appeal should precede the trial court’s ruling on these objections is erroneous.
The second ground focuses on the trial court’s failure to consider six out of the seven jurisdictional grounds raised in Kanu’s preliminary objection. These grounds include the argument that the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011, under which IPOB was proscribed, are inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution. Additionally, it highlights a subsisting judgment declaring the executive action leading to IPOB’s proscription unconstitutional. Other points of contention include the lack of specific details in the charges and the relevance of repealed laws.
Ejimakor’s statement further emphasizes that the trial court’s ruling against the settled law concerning repealed laws sustaining charges only if prosecutions are completed or concluded was incorrect. The appeal references binding decisions that support the notion that charges based on repealed laws are incompetent if not concluded before the repeal.
The Detention and prolonged prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu is really distabilizing the Economy of the south east, We are looking foward to the Federal Government to hiding to the plea of the Ohaneze Ndigbo on Nnamdi Kanu’s detention to discontinue the cases and drop all charges.
Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Resumes At the Federal High Court Abuja
2 thoughts on “Nnamdi Kanu Appeals Federal High Court Ruling: A Closer Look”