Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu is reportedly heading to the Court of Appeal to challenge the amended seven charges on terrorism approved by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In the copy of court processes obtained by newsmen on Monday, May 2, it was revealed that the IPOB leader is challenging the court’s final decision to retain counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 15.
In their application at the federal high court, Kanu’s lawyers which include Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Ifeanyi Ejiofor had insisted that the charges against him are legally defective.
Ozekhome who noted that his client was “unlawfully, brutally and extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya without his consent”, also argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him on the strength of an incompetent charge.
He also said that the charges against Kanu were purportedly committed outside the country, and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the charge.
Ozekhome said;
“The charges appear to give this court a global jurisdiction over offenses that were allegedly committed by the defendant, without specifying the location or date the said offenses were committed”
He also averred that under the Federal High Court Act, the location where the offense was committed must be disclosed.
Punch reported that in the suit filed at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal by Ozekhome and Ejiofor, it was stated that the trial judge erred in law by failing to “consider, make a 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 is now seeking;
“An order of this Honourable court allowing the appeal and 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 an 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.
“And for such further order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this appeal.”
