From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Abuja Division of the Appeal Court to set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court assuming jurisdiction to conduct his trial.
Justice Binta Nyako, on 19 June 2023, turned down Kanu’s application challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the case brought against him by the federal government.
His legal team, led by Alloy Ejimakor, contends that the ruling contained several legal errors and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
In the notice of appeal filed on Tuesday, Kanu urges the appellate court to declare the retained charges invalid and order his unconditional release.
The appeal also seeks his acquittal of all charges on the grounds that they are incompetent and invalid under Nigerian law.
His legal team anchored the five grounds of appeal primarily on what they described as substantial errors in law and significant procedural lapses by the trial court.
The appeal seeks to overturn the lower court’s ruling and address substantial issues surrounding the charges retained against Kanu.
Kanu’s counsel contends that the trial judge erred by suggesting that any objections to the retained charges should be addressed through an appeal rather than through preliminary objections.
They argue that the appellant has the right to raise new jurisdictional issues not previously considered, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
They argued that the trial court allegedly neglected to consider several critical grounds challenging its jurisdiction, including the constitutional validity of the laws under which IPOB was proscribed and the retrospective application of laws not in effect at the time of the alleged offences.
The appeal argues that the trial court’s decision to proceed without addressing the validity of the retained charges denies Kanu a fair hearing. This is compounded by the court’s refusal to consider affidavit evidence and exhibits presented by the defence.
Kanu’s legal team points out that the prosecution failed to contradict key pieces of affidavit evidence, which should have been taken as admitted and considered by the trial court in its ruling.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s characterisation of the preliminary objection as an abuse of judicial process, arguing that it was based on new and uncontradicted evidence.