Nnamdi Kanu Appeals Ruling Of Federal High Court Retaining Terrorism Charges Against Him

The Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has appealed the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered by Honourable Justice B.F.M Nyako on the 8th of April in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, which struck out 8 out of the 15 counts in the amended charge in the Federal Government’s criminal trial against him.

The Lawyer recalls that on the 8th of April, 2022, the Federal High Court in its ruling on the Preliminary Objection filed by Nnamdi Kanu against the amended 15-count charge, dismissed 8 of the said charges and retained 7 for trial.

However, dissatisfied with the ruling, the IPOB leader through his Counsel have filed a Notice of Appeal asking the Court of Appeal to quash the retained charges.

In the Notice of Appeal prepared by his Lead Counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, and sighted by The Lawyer, Nnamdi Kanu complained about a miscarriage of justice occasioned by improper consideration of the issues raised for determination in his objection at the Trial Court.

In the Notice of Appeal dated 29th of April of 2022 for service on the Attorney General of the Federation who is the Respondent, the Appellant through his Counsel raised five grounds on which the appeal is premised.

The Grounds are as follows;

1. “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he failed to consider, make findin3g 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.”
2. The learned trial Judge erred in Law, when he held that “the defendant is being charged under Section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act, which has been reproduced above, any offence alleged to have been committed “within” or “outside” Nigeria can be brought under the Act”, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice”.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in law, when he held that although the status of the Indigenous People of Biafra as a proscribed organization is a subject matter before the Court of Appeal, but as long as the appeal has not been determined, the order of Court proscribing is still in force until set aside, and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
4. The learned trial Judge erred in law when in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 216(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, suo motu amended count 15 of the charge, which is founded on an allegation of importation of a radio transmitter in Ubuluisiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, and proceeded to assume jurisdiction over offences allegedly committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that trials before the Federal High Court are summary, and consequently ruled that counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 show some semblance of allegation of an offence on which the Court can proceed to trial, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

In the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant also claims four reliefs which include: An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the ruling of the trial court; An order dismissing the remaining Counts 1,2,3,4,5,8 and 15.

They also prayed the Intermediate Court to terminate the entire charge and dismiss the Appellant, and for other orders deemed fit by the Court.

The sougt reliefs read;

1. AN ORDER OF THIS HONORUABLE 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.

2. AN ORDER OF THIS HONORUABLE 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.

3. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT TERMINATING THE ENTIRE CHARGE AND DISCHARGING THE APPELLANT.

4. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO MAKE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL.