Supreme Leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu has dragged the Nigerian government to the Court of Appeal to challenge the amended seven charges on terrorism approved by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
A copy court processes made available to journalists on Monday, revealed that Kanu is challenging the decision of the High Court to retain counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15.
Kanu’s lawyers in their application at the court insisted that the charges against the defendant were legally defective.
Mike Ozekhome, one of Kanu’s lawyers, his client was “unlawfully, brutally and extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya without his consent”, arguing that the court lacked the power to try the embattled separatist on the strength of an incompetent charge.
The human rights lawyer said the said charges were committed outside the country, and the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear them.
“The charges appears to give this court a global jurisdiction over offences that were allegedly committed by the defendant, without specifying the location or date the said offences were committed,” Ozehkome reiterated.
In the suit filed at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal Kanu’s legal team, it was stated that the trial Judge erred in law by failing to “consider, make 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.”
Kanu is now seeking for;
“An order of this Honourable court allowing the appeal and setting aside in its entirety, the ruling/final decision of the learned trial court, retaining counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 of the amended charge.
“An order of this Honourable court upon granting relief a above, dismissing the remaining counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 and, accordingly discharging the appellant on those counts.
“An order of this Honourable court terminating the entire charge and discharging the appellant.
“And for such further order or orders as the Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this appeal.”
