The Federal Government has set another plan to re-arraign the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, on an amended six-count treasonable felony charge.
According to Vanguard report, a member of Kanu’s legal team, who craved anonymity, told Vanguard on Wednesday May 18, 2022 that FG had in the amended charge, listed some lawyers representing the embattled IPOB leader, including Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor and Mr. Maxwell Opara, as accomplices of the defendant.
The amendment came on a day trial Justice Binta Nyako fixed to hear an application Kanu filed to be released on bail, pending the determination of the charge against him.
IMPORTANT: You can now Click “HERE” to receive News updates directly on your WhatsApp!
It was gathered that the said lawyers, were constantly in contact with Kanu, after he jumped bail and fled the country.
Recall, the IPOB leader was arrested in June 2021 in Kenya and subsequently extradited to Nigeria over treason charges after escaping from the country since 2017 while on bail.
Trial Justice Binta Nyako had on April 8, struck out eight out of the 15-count treasonable felony charge FG preferred against Kanu.
AFFECTED BY ASUU STRIKE? EXPLORE SCHOLARSHIPS ABROAD | APPLY NOW
APPLY: 2022 Federal Government of Nigeria Scholarship Award for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students
Study-In-Italy: 2022 Italian Government Scholarships for International Students
Justice Nyako held that the charges were mere repetitions that did not disclose any offence that could be sustained by the proof of evidence before the court.
FG had in the counts that were struck out, alleged that Kanu had through his broadcasts, incited members of the public to not only stage a violent revolution, but to attack police officers and also destroy public facilities in Lagos State.
ATTENTION: Click “HERE” to receive News updates directly on your WhatsApp!
While the court threw out counts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,13 and 14 of the charge, it okayed Kanu’s trial on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15.
The ruling followed an application Kanu filed to quash the entire charge against him, which he insisted was manifestly incompetent and legally defective.
The IPOB leader, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him on the strenght of an incompetent charge.
Ozekhome (SAN), further told the court that his client was “unlawfully, brutally and extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya without his consent”.
He argued that since some of the allegations FG levelled against Kanu, were purportedly committed outside the country, the high court, therefore, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the charge.
“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”.
LIVE & STUDY ABROAD WITH SCHOLARSHIPS | APPLY NOW
Study-In-Italy: 2022 Italian Government Scholarships for International Students
Study-In-Malaysia: 2022 Government of Malaysia International Scholarships for Postgraduate Students
He argued that under the Federal High Court Act, such charge must disclose specific location where the offence was committed.
More so, Ozekhome contended that Kanu could not be charged with belonging to an unlawful organization since the action of FG, in proscribing the IPOB, is still subject of legal dispute at the Court of Appeal and therefore subjudice.
Consequently, he urged the court to dismiss the charge, as well as to discharge and acquit the defendant.
However, FG’s lawyer, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran, opposed the application and urged the court to allow the prosecution to open its case.
He argued that Kanu’s application would touch the substance of the case that is yet to be heard.
“The position as at now is that the IPOB is a proscribed organization which was duly proscribed through the due process of law”.
He argued that Section 32 of the Terrorism Prevention Act imbued the court with the requisite jurisdiction to handle the trial.
On Kanu’s bail request, Ozekhome, maintained that the amended charge contained bailable offences, while FG’s lawyer, Labaran, argued that the defendant betrayed the previous discretion the court exercised in his favour when he jumped bail and escaped from the country.
Share a story or tip with us on WhatsApp: 07041591544 | intelregion.com@gmail.com
📡Our Social Media Channels:
- WhatsApp: iR News Room
- Facebook: Intel Region News
- Twitter: @intelregion
- Instagram: @intelregion
- Telegram: iR News Room