Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has moved against the continuation of his trial.
Kanu, who is facing charges bordering on terrorism, filed a notice of preliminary objection to the trial.
In the notice he personally signed and filed before the Abuja Federal High Court, Kanu anchored his notice on the Nigerian Constitution, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The notice reads: “A Declaration that the continued prosecution of the Defendant under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013, and upon a proscription order obtained ex parte and without fair hearing, violates Sections 1(3), 36(112), and 42 of the Constitution and Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter, and is therefore null and void.
“A Declaration that the Federal High Court’s ex-parte order proscribing IPOB, obtained without notice or hearing and while Justice Binta Nyako’s subsisting ruling (that “IPOB is not an unawful society”) remained in force, is unconstitutional, unlawful, and cannot ground criminal liability.
“An Order striking out or permanently staying Counts 1-8 (save Count 15) of the Amended Charge dated 14 January 2022 for being barred by double jeopardy, having the same factual ingredients as Counts 6-14 earlier struck out by the Federal High Court on 8 April 2022.
“An Order declaring that the Defendant’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya without extradition proceedings or due process violated Section 36(1) & (9) of the Constitution, the Extradition Act (Cap E25 LFN 2004), and Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter, thereby robing this Honourable Court of jurisdiction.
“An Order nullifying all proceedings conducted in breach of the Defendant’s right to adequate facilities for defence, confidential communication with counsel, and fair hearing-particularly the eavesdropping,seizure of legal materials, and denial of unmonitored access.
“And for such further order(s) as this Honorable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. AND FURTHER take Notice that at the hearing of this Preliminary Objection, the Defendant shall – in addition to the Affidavit, Exhibits and the Written Address filed hereof – rely on the following Grounds:
“The continued prosecution of the Defendant despite the binding Court of Appeal discharge of 13 October 2022 and eight-day post-judgment detention constitutes flagrant contempt of court. Under Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, a party in disobedience cannot seek the Court’s indulgence. A court cannot lawfully proceed in favour of a contemnor; jurisdiction is ousted.
“All charges are framed under repealed laws, namely the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act, both extinguished by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and the Customs and Excise Management (Repeal and Re-enactment) Act 2023. Under Section 98(3) TPPA 2022, Section 36(12) CFRN, and Section 122(2)(a) Evidence Act 2011, a repealed law cannot found criminal liability.
“The denial of fair hearing in Kenya, the breach of international comity, and the failure to restore the Defendant to the status quo ante before re-arraignment render this prosecution unconstitutional. Section 36 is non-derogable; once violated, the trial collapses. See Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 550; Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt
660) 228.”
