Nnamdi Kanu Files Appeal Against Nigerian High Court’s Jurisdiction Over Terrorism Charges.
Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed an appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to try him on terrorism charges brought against him by the Nigerian government.
Read Also : Tonto Dikeh Invited by IGP Monitoring Unit – Here’s What We Know So Far
The appeal was submitted on Friday through Kanu’s special lawyer, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, raising six critical issues for consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Kanu’s appeal includes several requests, such as the immediate cessation of his trial, the discharge of all charges against him, and his release from detention.
This appeal follows the decision of Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court on June 19, where objections to the court’s jurisdiction over Kanu’s trial were dismissed. Consequently, Kanu has taken the matter to the Court of Appeal, expressing confidence that he will prevail based on the merits of his case.
Pay Attention To: BREAKING: Passenger Plane Crashes in Sao Paulo (Video)
In his appeal, Kanu referenced a series of legal precedents, including an October 2022 judgment from the High Court of Enugu State, which he claims undermines the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction on six of the seven charges remitted from the Supreme Court. He also cited opinions and decisions from a United Nations tribunal and the African Union tribunal, which similarly detracted from the lower court’s jurisdiction over the case.
Additionally, Kanu pointed out that the repeal and replacement of the Terrorism Prevention and Amendment Act (TPAA) in 2022 and the Customs and Excise Management Act in 2023 further challenge the jurisdiction of the lower court to proceed with the charges against him.
Kanu’s appeal specifically questions the lower court’s decision to proceed with the trial after the case was remitted by the Supreme Court. His legal team argues that the Federal High Court failed to adequately address all seven jurisdictional grounds raised in the preliminary objection.
The appeal also criticizes the trial court’s refusal to fully consider the preliminary objection and its ruling on only one of the seven grounds, which related to the repeal of the TPAA 2013.
Kanu’s legal team argues that the trial court violated his right to a fair hearing by not addressing all the jurisdictional issues and by dismissing the preliminary objection as an abuse of process, despite acknowledging the merit of some arguments.
The appeal seeks to determine whether the trial court’s rulings were legally sound and if the Court of Appeal should intervene to correct these alleged errors. Kanu’s legal team also contends that the trial court ignored key affidavit evidence presented by the defense, which was left unchallenged by the prosecution.
The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for Kanu’s ongoing legal battles and his continued detention.
