Nnamdi Kanu Heads To Appeal Court, Challenges Jurisdiction Of Abuja FHC

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 (FHC) refusing his application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain his trial.

The appeal document, referenced as Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, states as follows: “Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division coram: B.F.M. Nyako, J. delivered on the 19th June, 2024, more particularly set out in Paragraph 2, doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja upon the grounds set out in Paragraph 3 below and will at the hearing of the Appeal seek the Reliefs set out in Paragraph 4 of this Notice of Appeal.

“AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the names and addresses of persons directly affected by this appeal are those set out in Paragraph 5.”

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 this 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.”