The detained Biafra nation agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to stop the Federal High Court from delivering judgment in the terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

Judgement in the terrorism charges filed since 2015 has been scheduled for delivery on November 20 by Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

However, Kanu, in a fresh motion on notice he has just filed, is praying the Court of Appeal to stop the High Court from further proceeding in the charges against him.

His new motion was predicated on the grounds that he had filed a notice of appeal against the September 26 ruling of Justice Omotosho, which dismissed his no-case submission and ordered him to defend the terrorism allegations against him.

The leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is contending that the Federal High Court was wrong in dismissing his no-case submission without going through the jurisdictional and validity of the charges he raised.

Among other things, he argued that the lower court was wrong in upholding the charges because the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act had been repealed, and therefore, there were no valid charges against him.

He also held that the Constitutional issue of jurisdiction was not addressed by the judge in the considered ruling on the no-case submission.

The ground of the motion was that Justice Omotosho did not evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the cross-examination to determine whether the adduced evidence had been discredited.

“That he sought to call 23 witnesses only when the issue of jurisdiction had been determined, but which the court refused to do and stated that such would be done in the final judgment.

“That the Judge foreclosed his right to defend himself from the charges while refusing to rule on his objections to the validity of some of the counts in the charges.”

Kanu stated that if his request to halt the judgment delivery was not granted by the Court of Appeal, he might be unlawfully convicted and sentenced to jail.

Besides, he feared that if the November 20 judgment is delivered, his appeal against the no-case submission would become a mere academic exercise, and a fait accompli would therefore be foisted on the Court of Appeal.