Wednesday, June 26, 2024 - Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has appealed the June 19 ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Binta Nyako, against his objection to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to subject him to trial.
Kanu through his Special Counsel,
Chief Aloy Ejimakor, filed the notice of appeal on Tuesday at the Court of
Appeal in Abuja.
The statement made by Ejimakor
reads:
"Earlier today (Tuesday), 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.
”
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..
“AND TAKE
FURTHER NOTICE that the names and addresses of persons directly affected by
this appeal are those set out in Paragraph 5.
“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.
“Particulars of the error: The part of the Ruling by the court below that
states that “The main issue is that, if the Defendant has a problem with the
counts of charge retained, the option open is appeal” is an erroneous statement
of the law for the following reasons:
“a. As a matter of law, the Appellant is,
after the remission from the Supreme Court to the court below, entitled to
raise any further preliminary objection to jurisdiction on Grounds not raised
in the previous preliminary objection that reduced the initial Counts of the
Charges from 15 (fifteen) to 7 (seven).
“b. As a
matter of trite law, the Appellant can only exercise the option of appeal after
the trial court has pronounced a ruling on the instant preliminary objection,
not before. It is markedly strange, in our jurisprudence, to suggest (as the
trial court did) that appeal of the said seven (7) Counts (remitted from the
Supreme Court) should precede or take the place of the instant preliminary
objection raised before the court below.
Thus, the
Appellant cannot be expected to proceed on appeal over the validity or
otherwise of the Counts when the issues had never been raised and ruled upon by
the trial court.
“2,
The previous jurisdictional issues raised by the Appellant against the
erstwhile 15 counts and which were decided by the Supreme Court was on the
basis of the Extraordinary Rendition of the Appellant and other Grounds not
raised in the preliminary objection that is the subject of this Appeal.
“3, The Supreme Court in its decision
never foreclosed the Appellant from raising other jurisdiction issues affecting
the retained counts/charges; instead the Supreme Court had in fact contemplated
(or pre-exempted from its judgment) further objections to the jurisdiction of
the trial Court when, in its lead judgment at Page 46, the apex court stated as
follows:
“In the above premises, the duty to
consider and make pronouncements on the other issues in this Appeal, is abated
particularly since the trial court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction
to proceed with trial of the Respondent during, in the course of, or at which
some of these issues may be raised or arise”.
“4,
Further to the above, especially as it concerns the validity of the remaining
or “retained” Counts of Charge, the trial court conceded or correctly stated
that “the Supreme Court did not determine the validity of the counts”, thus
occasioning a grave miscarriage by refusing to make said determination when the
instant application was on the validity of the said retained counts. “Ground
two: Error in law The trial court erred in law when it considered only one out
of the seven (7) ‘jurisdictional’ Grounds raised in the preliminary objection),
said lone Ground bordering on the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment
Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), which thus occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice
against the Appellant. ” Particulars of the error: 1,
As can be gleaned from its
Ruling, the Honorable trial court did not consider the following Grounds of
objection to its jurisdiction: “a. Regarding COUNTS 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, the
provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 (as amended in 2013) under
which the IPOB was proscribed and declared a terrorist group are inconsistent
with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, and are thus void to the
extent of the inconsistency. “b, Regarding COUNTS 1,2,3,4,5 and 8, there is a
subsisting judgment of a High Court to the effect that the executive action
leading to the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist group and its proscription is
unconstitutional. “c, Count 3 of the charges against the Appellant is
unconstitutional as it seeks to punish the Appellant for an act that was not a
crime when it occurred and is otherwise an abuse of process. “d, COUNTS
1,2,3,4,5 and 8 are incurably defective as the Appellant is misled by the
failure to state the place or where the alleged offenses were committed and the
specific dates of the alleged broadcasts. “e, Count 15 is not in compliance
with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act; it is not within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Court; and it is not supported by
any proof of evidence; and Law under which Applicant is being tried in these
Counts has otherwise been repealed.
“2. The failure of the trial Court to determine the said
foregoing six (6) Grounds is manifestly wrong and a denial of the Appellant’s
rights to fair hearing, since the Appellant ought to know the competence or
otherwise of the counts before being subjected to strenuous pretrial detention
and trial over the manifestly incompetent counts affected by the said Grounds
not determined by the trial court.
“3, Further, in its said consideration of the said Ground of
objection (bordering only on repeal of TPAA 2013) and in ruling the way that it
did, the Honorable trial court erred by ruling against the settled law that a
repealed law can only sustain a completed or concluded prosecution and where
not so concluded, the charges/counts become abated and incompetent.
“4, The binding decisions of Amona &
ORS Vs. Incorporated Trustees of Omadino Development Association & Ors
(2004) LPELR-12610 (CA) andNCAA Vs. Project Eagle Air Ltd & ORS (2021)
LPELR-53105 (CA) on the incompetence of charges/counts founded on repealed laws
were adverted to the trial court, but the court ignored them and relied on no
judicial or statutory authority to overrule the Appellant’s Notice of
Preliminary Objection.”
0 Comments