The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, Nigeria on Friday, struck
out eight out of the 15-count treasonable felony charge the Federal
Government preferred against the detained leader of the Indigenous
People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.
Specifically, the court, in
a ruling that was delivered by trial Justice Binta Nyako, struck out
counts 6,7,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 of the charge.
Kanu,
in the application he filed through his team of lawyers led by Chief
Mike Ozekhome(SAN), maintained that the charge against him was legally
defective.
He argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him on the strenght of an incompetent charge.
Ozekhome
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,
lack 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”.
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, Ozekhome urged the court to
dismiss the charge, as well as to discharge and acquit the Defendant of
the entire 15-count charge pending against him.
“This case is
hollow, there is nothing in it. It is dead on arrival. Elements
constituting the offence must occur within the jurisdiction of this
court,” he argued.
However, FG’s lawyer, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran,
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.
“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.
“We urged my lord to refuse the application to pave way for commencement of the trial in ernest.
“This is a matter that has been pending for over five years now,” the prosecution counsel added.
By Odoh Dominic Chukwuemeka
0 Comments
You Are Welcome To:
Glaring Star World
...It's All About You.