Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed an application with the Appeal Court to halt his trial.
Filed by his Lead Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, the appeal challenges his prosecution by an Abuja Federal High Court under Justice Binta Nyako.
Ejimakor recently asserted that the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear charges against Kanu.
The Nigerian Government is prosecuting Kanu on terrorism-related charges.
In the appeal, Ejimakor argued, “The Appellant (Nnamdi Kanu) filed this appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, presided over by B.F.M Nyako, J., delivered on March 19, 2024. The ruling is found on pages 42-43 of the Record of Appeal; the Notice of Appeal is on pages 44-49. The Record of Appeal was sent to this Honourable Court on May 16, 2024. There are three grounds in the Notice of Appeal, and the issues discussed herein are derived from these grounds.
“My Lords, the Appellant has been in pre-trial detention since June 2021 at the Headquarters of the State Security Services (SSS) in Abuja. He is currently on trial for seven charges, some carrying the death penalty. On February 19, 2024, the Appellant filed a ‘Notice of Preliminary Objection’ to the trial court’s jurisdiction, citing Section 36(6)(b) and (c) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 (as amended). This notice was supported by an affidavit, three exhibits, and a written address and was based on several grounds detailed on pages 3-24 of the Record of Appeal.
“The Respondent’s forcible seizure and photocopying of confidential legal documents brought to the Appellant by his lawyers, intended for his defense preparation, violate his constitutional right to adequate facilities for defense preparation and the right to be defended by legal practitioners of his choice, as guaranteed under Section 36(6)(b) and (c) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 (as amended).
“The Respondent’s refusal to allow the Appellant’s Counsel to take notes during professional and confidential discussions with the Appellant further violates his right to adequate defense preparation and the right to counsel of his choice, thus infringing on his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
“The Respondent’s eavesdropping on confidential consultations between the Appellant and his lawyers during visits constitutes a denial of the Appellant’s right to adequate defense preparation and counsel choice, severely violating his constitutional right to a fair hearing.”
Ejimakor raised several questions for the court to consider, including:
“Was the trial court correct to assume jurisdiction when the Appellant was denied the constitutional right to a fair trial, particularly adequate facilities for defense preparation and the right to counsel of his choice? (Ground One of the Notice of Appeal).
“Did the trial judge fail to properly evaluate evidence, especially the Appellant’s uncontroverted evidence, leading to the erroneous conclusion that the court cannot direct a security agency’s operations and that the Defendant should only be allowed legal facilities within the law? (Ground Two of the Notice of Appeal).
“Was the trial judge wrong to order an accelerated hearing despite evidence showing the Respondent’s consistent denial of the Appellant’s rights to adequate defense preparation and unfettered access to counsel? (Ground Three of the Notice of Appeal).”
Ejimakor urged the Appeal Court to:
“Set aside the decision/ruling under appeal and specifically instruct the trial court to decline jurisdiction until the Appellant is granted his right to a fair hearing under Section 36(6)(b) and (c) of the Constitution. Alternatively, the trial court should arrange for a custodial or non-custodial setting free from the Respondent’s interference with the Appellant’s constitutional rights to a fair hearing.
“Set aside the order for accelerated hearing, considering the Appellant’s inability to prepare for his defense adequately and the denial of his right to counsel.”
Kanu also requested the Appeal Court to stay the proceedings until the Nigerian Government ensures he is afforded the necessary constitutional safeguards for adequate defense preparation and
access to his chosen counsel.