Terrorism charge: Nnamdi Kanu heads to Appeal Court

Leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has dragged the Federal Government to the Court of Appeal, challenging the amended seven charges on terrorism granted by Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court in Abuja.

He was challenging the decision of the court as contained in the ruling and final decision retaining counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 of the amended charge, delivered on April 8, 2022.

Journalists in Abuja obtained a copy of the court processes, yesterday.

Nyako had struck out eight out of the 15-count treasonable felony charge filed against Kanu by the Federal Government.

While Nyako struck out counts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,13 and 14 of the charge, she okayed Kanu’s trial on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15. The striking out of counts 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the charge followed an application Kanu filed to quash the entire charge against him. Kanu had in the application he filed through his team of lawyers, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Ifeanyi Ejiofor, maintained that the charge against him was legally defective. He had argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him on the strength of an incompetent charge.

Ozekhome had told the court that his client was “unlawfully, brutally and extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya without his consent”.

He had argued that since some of the allegations leveled against Kanu were purportedly committed outside the country, the court, therefore, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the charge.

“The charges appear 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,” he had said.

He argued that under the Federal High Court Act, such a charge must disclose the specific location where the offence was committed.

However, a lawyer for the Federal Government, Shuaibu Labaran, had prayed the court to strike out Kanu’s application and order the prosecution to open its defence. He argued that the application would touch the substance of the case that is yet to be heard.