The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to halt its plan to deliver judgment in the terrorism case brought against him by the Federal Government.
Kanu is facing a seven-count terrorism charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, in which the Federal Government alleged that he led a separatist movement seeking the secession of the South-East, parts of the South-South, and some communities in Kogi and Benue states from Nigeria
He was also accused of inciting violence and killings through broadcasts allegedly transmitted across the country, as well as illegally importing a radio transmitter.
Kanu pleaded not guilty to the charges.
While the prosecution closed its case after calling five witnesses, Kanu had initially listed 23 individuals he intended to summon in his defence.
He later withdrew this list, insisting that he would not defend a charge he described as invalid and containing offences unknown to the law.
At the last sitting, after Kanu failed to open his defence despite being granted six days to do so, Justice James Omotosho proceeded to fix a date for judgment, having given him multiple opportunities.
In a fresh motion filed on November 10 and personally signed by him, Kanu asked the court to suspend the November 20 date set for judgment in his terrorism trial.
He argued that his prosecution under the now-repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013 contravenes Sections 1(3), 36(1)–(12), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The motion, filed before Justice Omotosho under Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, urged the court to halt judgment on the grounds that the proceedings were conducted under a repealed and non-existent law, in violation of the Supreme Court’s directives and contrary to Section 287(1) of the Constitution.
Kanu also sought a declaration that the trial court was constitutionally bound to give effect to the Supreme Court’s finding that Count 15 (now Count 7) “does not exist in law”, and that failure to do so renders all subsequent proceedings null and void.
He further argued that the court’s failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, contrary to Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, invalidates all proceedings conducted under it.
Kanu contended that under Section 76(1)(a)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to try him in the absence of proof that the alleged conduct constituted an offence under Kenyan law or was supported by a valid extradition order from a Kenyan court.
He also challenged the plea purportedly taken on March 29, 2023 under a repealed statute and in violation of Section 220 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, describing it as void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction.
Kanu argued that the alleged use of forged materials in the proceedings amounted to a constructive denial of fair hearing under Section 36(6) of the Constitution, and therefore asked the court to set aside all rulings and proceedings presided over by Justice Omotosho on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and breach of constitutional supremacy.
Now representing himself after disengaging his team of lawyers, Kanu stated that he was misled into pleading under a non-existent law, contrary to Section 220 of the ACJA 2015.
“It is in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to arrest judgment ex debito justitiae,” he added.
Among the reliefs sought in his motion are an order arresting the delivery of judgment in the suit and a declaration that the court’s failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, contrary to Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, vitiates all steps taken under it.
Comments
Post a Comment