By Seun Opejobi The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu on Tuesday headed to the Abuja Division of the Appeal...
By Seun Opejobi
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi
Kanu on Tuesday headed to the Abuja Division of the Appeal Court over the
decision of the Abuja Federal High Court refusing his application challenging
the court’s jurisdiction to entertain his trial.
On June 19, Kanu had filed an application challenging
Justice Binta Nyako-led Federal High Court’s decision to entertain his trial.
However, Kanu through his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, filed
a notice of appeal before the Abuja Appeal Court over Justice Binta Nyako’s
ruling.
In the notice filed before the court, Ejimakor said Justice
Nyako erred in law and occasioned grave miscarriage of justice against Kanu
when she said: “The main claim in this application deals with the counts of
charge the Defendant is facing. These counts of charge that this Court had
retained after a considered ruling on the counts of charge dismissing 8 of the
original counts. The main issue is that, if the Defendant has a problem with the
counts of charge retained, the option open is appeal.”
According to Ejimakor: “Earlier today, I filed a Notice of
Appeal with the Court of Appeal in Abuja against the 19th June 2024 ruling of
Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, refusing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s application
challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to subject him to
trial.”
Ejimakor said the trial court erred in law when it
considered only one out of the seven ‘jurisdictional’ grounds raised in the
preliminary objection and the lone ground bordering on the repeal of the
Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), occasioned a grave
miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.
He said: “The learned trial judge erred in law and thus
occasioned grave miscarriage of justice against the Appellant when the trial
court refused the preliminary objection even after it held that “all the
arguments of counsel may be correct but it will require the court to take
evidence before it can pronounce on the arguments”.
“The trial court was right to hold that the argument of the
counsel to the Appellant is well-founded or may be correct but the Honorable
trial court erred and/or otherwise misdirected itself on the law when it held
at the same time that the said arguments will require evidence before the trial
court can make its pronouncement.
“The learned trial court erred in law when the court ignored
the glaring fact that the Respondent failed woefully to contradict or deny the
Affidavit evidence of the Appellant and even admitted to some of the
depositions of the Appellant.
“The learned trial judge erred in law and occasioned grave
miscarriage of justice against the Appellant when the trial court held that the
Notice of Preliminary Objection was an abuse of judicial process and
consequently struck it out.”
No comments