The leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has appealed the June 19 ruling by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, which denied his objection to the court’s jurisdiction over his trial.
Kanu’s lead counsel, Alloy Ejimakor, filed the notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
In a statement, Ejimakor outlined seven grounds for the appeal, citing provisions of the Constitution, the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, and other relevant statutes.
The Federal Government of Nigeria, represented by Counsel Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, is the sole respondent in the appeal.
The notice of appeal reads: “Earlier today I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal in Abuja against the 19th June 2024 ruling of Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, refusing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s application objecting to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to subject him to trial.
ALSO READ:Kaduna off-cycle election: APC’s Gabriel wins Kachia/Kagarko Rep seat
“The grounds of the objection are seven and mostly predicated on provisions of the Constitution, the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 and other pertinent statutes.
”TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division coram: B.F.M Nyako, J. delivered on the 19th June, 2024, more particularly set out in Paragraph 2, doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja upon the grounds set out in Paragraph 3 below and will at the hearing of the Appeal seek the Reliefs set out in Paragraph 4 of this Notice of Appeal.
“Ground one: Error in law: The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and occasioned grave miscarriage of justice against the Appellant when the trial Court held that the main claim in this application deals with the counts of charge the Defendant is facing.
”These counts of charge that this Court had retained after a considered ruling on the counts of charge dismissing 8 of the original counts. The main issue is that, if the Defendant has a problem with the counts of charge retained, the option open is appeal.”
Kanu’s legal team argues that the trial judge erred in law and caused a grave miscarriage of justice by ruling against their objection to the court’s jurisdiction, suggesting that their only recourse was to appeal the counts of charge retained by the court.
