News
Nnamdi Kanu is appealing a court judgment that upholds seven of the fifteen counts made against him.
Nnamdi Kanu is appealing a court judgment that upholds seven of the fifteen counts made against him.
Nnamdi Kanu is appealing a court judgment that upholds seven of the fifteen counts made against him.
NewsReport gathered that Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has challenged a Federal High Court judgement that dismissed eight of the 15 accusations brought against him.
Kanu was on trial for a revised 15-count allegation that bordered on treasonous crime.
Counts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were struck out by Binta Nyako, the judge who ruled on Kanu’s application on Friday.
But in the appeal issued on Friday and signed by his lead counsel, Mike Ozekhome, as obtained by SaharaReporters, Kanu prayed to the court of appeal in Abuja to dismiss the remaining charges against him and discharge him.
The separatist leader faulted Nyako’s ruling on the case, arguing that the judge erred in several areas, which amounted to a “miscarriage of justice.”
The first ground is a legal error.The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to consider, make a finding of facts and accordingly pronounce on issue one raised for the trial court’s determination, relating to the extraordinary rendition of the appellant, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The second reason is a legal error. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that “the defendant is being charged under Section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act, which has been reproduced above. Any offence alleged to have been committed “within” or “outside” Nigeria can be brought under the Act,” thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”
“Ground three: error in law.” The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that although the status of the Indigenous People of Biafra as a proscribed organization is a subject matter before the Court of Appeal, as long as the appeal has not been determined, the order of the Court proscribing is still in force until set aside, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
“Ground four: error in law. The learned trial judge erred in law when, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 216 (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, he suo motu amended count 15 of the charge, which is founded on an allegation of the importation of a radio transmitter into Ubuluisiuzor in the Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, and proceeded to assume jurisdiction over offences allegedly committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, and thereby occasioned a misc
“Ground five: error in law. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that trials before the Federal High Court are summary, and consequently ruled that counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 15 show some semblance of an allegation of an offence on which the Court can proceed to trial, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice”.
