The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed an appeal against the decision of a Federal High Court (FHC), in Abuja, which dismissed his objections to continued trial.

Justice Binta Nyako had in a ruling on March 19, dismissed his bail application and refused to grant the objection he raised against his trial, but ordered an accelerated hearing.

In his notice of appeal dated and filed March 28, 2024, through his counsel, Mr. Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu is asking for an order from the Court of Appeal, Abuja to allow the appeal and set aside the trial court’s decision.

The IPOB leader had filed a preliminary objection seeking an order for some conditions to be met by the Federal Government before his trial at FHC could proceed.

He had alleged that the Department of State Service (DSS) personnel stopped his lawyers from taking notes, spying, and intruding on his consultation with his lawyers on matters about his defence, among others.

He also alleged that the DSS seized documents of his lawyers during visitation and that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to defend himself under Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered).

However, in his notice of appeal, Kanu listed Nigeria as the only respondent.

In his three grounds of appeal, he stated that the trial court erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the criminal trial against him when he was denied the constitutional right to a fair trial.

Kanu alleged that he was denied adequate facilities to prepare for his defence on the criminal allegations against him and his right to counsel of his own choice, thereby occasioning a grave miscarriage of justice.

“The denial of the appellant (Kanu) the opportunity to interact and brief his counsel on what line of defences the appellant tends to agitate in the trial court and rely on was adequately brought to the attention of the trial court by motion.

“The trial court failed and neglected to make necessary orders that would protect the appellant’s aforesaid rights but rather held that the court cannot dictate how the respondent carries out its work,” he stated.

He said the trial court had the power to order the respondent to desist from interfering with his constitutional right.

“The decision of the trial court that the defendant is entitled to a counsel of his choice and should be given the facility to conduct interview with his counsel within the confines of the law is ambiguous and a license to the respondent to deny the appellant the Constitutional rights to adequate facilities to prepare for his defence and right to counsel, given that the respondent in their counter affidavit had alleged that what they do to the appellant and his legal team are ‘within the confines of the law.’

‘’Denial of the appellant’s right to adequate facilities to prepare defence as enshrined in Section 36 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution is a jurisdictional issue in the absence of which the trial court cannot assume or proceed with the jurisdiction over the case unless and until such facilities are accorded to the appellant.”

Kanu stated that though he had prayed to the court to stop the DSS alleged unconstitutional acts of forcibly seizing and photocopying confidential legal documents brought to him by his lawyers meant for his defence, the court declined to grant the plea.

He said the trial judge erred in law when the court ordered for an accelerated hearing despite the consistent refusal of the respondent to afford him the right to adequate facility to prepare for his defence and his right to counsel.

According to him, the order for accelerated hearing in the face of the constitutional breaches of fair hearing/trial is credence to the respondent to proceed on the unconstitutional denial of the appellant his right to adequate facilities to prepare for his defence and his right to counsel of his choice.

“In the present case, where Sections 36 (6) (b) and (c) of the Constitution are violated by the respondent against the appellant, the trial court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and or proceed with the hearing of the case,” he added.

The IPOB leader, therefore, prayed the appellate court to allow the appeal, vacate the ruling of the lower court to proceed with the hearing of the case unless and until he is granted his right to a fair hearing under Section 36(6)(6)(b) and (c) of the Constitution.