The scheduled judgement in the terrorism case against Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was abruptly halted on Thursday, November 20, after the defendant challenged the court's authority to try him.
Legal Challenge Halts Scheduled Judgement
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja was set to deliver a judgement on the seven-count terrorism charge brought by the Federal Government. The court had initially fixed the matter for judgement on November 7. However, the proceedings took an unexpected turn when it was revealed that Kanu had filed several new motions shortly after the adjournment.
The trial judge noted the new filings, and after Kanu identified all the motions, the court consolidated them and allowed him to proceed with his arguments.
Kanu's Grounds for Appeal
In his first motion, filed on November 12, Kanu made two primary requests. He prayed for an order referring what he termed “certain substantial issues arising from the trial” to the Court of Appeal. Secondly, he asked the court to stay all further proceedings pending the determination of those issues by the appellate court.
Kanu's defence is rooted in a fundamental challenge to the court's jurisdiction. He insisted that the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to try him from the very beginning. His argument hinges on the claim that the charge is based on a non-existing law. He specifically pointed to count 7, contending that the Supreme Court had already noted that the offence listed in that count does not exist in law.
Allegations of Procedural Flaws
Beyond the jurisdictional challenge, Kanu raised other critical issues. He argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution had been “sufficiently demolished” during the trial. He also raised the issue of a denial of fair hearing.
A significant part of his complaint focused on the court's procedure. Kanu maintained that the court was wrong to have unilaterally waived his right to file a written address before the case was slated for judgement. This, he argued, further compromised his right to a fair legal process.
The court's decision on these motions will determine the next course of this highly watched legal battle, potentially delaying the final judgement and shifting the focus to the Court of Appeal.
